Peer Review Process

The Journal of Policy Evaluation (JPEVAL) will adopt a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and relevance of the published articles. The process will include the following stages:

• Once the editorial team has verified that the submission adheres to the formatting and content guidelines for authors, it will be sent to two anonymous external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. These reviewers will provide constructive and pertinent feedback, along with recommendations for improving the work.
  The reviewers’ assessment report will focus on the article’s interest, its contribution to the research field, the novelty it presents, its scientific rigor, the structure of the article, its proper organization and writing, among other aspects.
  In case of significant discrepancies between the reports of the two reviewers, the article may be submitted for evaluation by a third reviewer.

• The final decision on the publication of articles will be made by the Chief Editors based on the reviews and recommendations of the reviewers. The Chief Editors will communicate the overall evaluation outcome (rejected, accepted, or accepted with modifications), including the reviewers’ comments.

• If the article is accepted with modifications, the authors must submit a revised version to the journal, which will be reviewed again by the same team of reviewers. Additionally, authors may attach a letter to the editor indicating the modifications made to the article following the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. If the authors decide not to follow a particular reviewer’s suggestion, they may explain their reasons in the letter.

The entire evaluation process can be tracked at any time through the platform, so JPEVAL is not required to send periodic updates regarding the status of a submission. In any case, the editorial committee will ensure the rigor and quality of the publication.

1. Article Evaluation

Reviewers must consider the following criteria for accepting or rejecting a manuscript review invitation:

• Knowledge and Experience: Reviewers must possess knowledge and expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. They should only accept the review if they consider themselves competent in the topic being evaluated.

• Adherence to Deadlines: Reviewers commit to completing the evaluation within the deadlines specified when the review is assigned. If they are unable to meet the deadline, they must inform the journal’s editorial office as soon as possible.

• Confidentiality Commitment: Throughout the evaluation process, reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the article’s content and not disclose it to third parties. The only authorized interlocutors regarding evaluation-related matters are the journal’s director and editors..

2. Review Guidelines

Once a review is accepted, reviewers must conduct an objective, technical, and constructive evaluation of the article or review. Their responsibilities in the evaluation process include:

• Policy Compliance: Verifying that the article adheres to the journal’s review policy guidelines.
• Review Form: Completing the peer review form provided by the journal, including comments for the author with suggestions, improvements, or necessary revisions for publication.
• Confidential Comments: If necessary, including confidential comments directed to the editors regarding the manuscript’s quality and acceptability, or any other considerations they do not wish to disclose to the author.

• Submission of Evaluation: Submitting the evaluation through the journal’s portal, issuing the corresponding recommendation.

3. Conflict of Interest

The journal employs a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. If reviewers identify the author, they must declare any conflict of interest and decline the editor’s invitation to review the manuscript.

A conflict of interest may arise due to:

• Hostility Toward the Authors: Negative feelings or biases toward the authors.

• Academic or Personal Closeness: Belonging to the same university, department, research group, professional network, or research project, or having previously published with the author.

• Other Connections or Conflicts: Any other professional connection or proximity that may compromise the impartiality of the evaluation.

If a reviewer suspects that an article is a substantial copy of another work, they must inform the editors. They must also report if they suspect that the article’s results are false or fraudulent.