Peer Review Policy

Readings in Political Economy is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Every manuscript submitted to the Journal is evaluated solely on its academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, significance, and contribution to scholarly knowledge. The Journal follows a double-blind peer review system to ensure impartiality and eliminate potential bias throughout the editorial process.

Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to determine whether it complies with the Journal’s submission requirements, ethical standards, and formatting guidelines. The Editorial Office also evaluates whether the manuscript demonstrates sufficient academic quality and originality to proceed to peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision or declined without external review.

Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate Editor and subsequently sent to independent experts for double-blind peer review. Under this model, the identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, and familiarity with the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations that assist both the authors and the Editorial Board in assessing the manuscript.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts on the basis of several academic criteria, including:
● Originality and novelty of the research.
● Significance and contribution to existing knowledge.
● Clarity of research objectives and questions.
● Appropriateness of the research methodology.
● Accuracy and validity of analysis and interpretation.
● Organization, clarity, and quality of presentation.
● Adequacy of references and supporting literature.
● Compliance with ethical research and publication standards.

Editorial Decisions
Following the peer review process, the assigned Editor carefully evaluates the reviewers’ reports before making an editorial recommendation. The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Editorial Authority.

Possible editorial decisions include:
● Accept – The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision.
● Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited revisions before acceptance.
● Major Revision – Significant revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo additional review.
● Reject – The manuscript does not meet the Journal’s publication standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to make the final decision on all submitted manuscripts.

Revision Process
When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond carefully to all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each comment has been addressed. Depending on the nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the Editor before a final decision is made.

Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
● Maintain complete confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscripts.
● Conduct objective, unbiased, and constructive evaluations.
● Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
● Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit.
● Identify relevant published work that has not been cited where appropriate.
● Report any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or research misconduct to the Editorial Office.

Reviewers should not use unpublished information obtained during the review process for personal research or professional advantage.

Author Responsibilities
Authors are expected to submit original research, respond respectfully to reviewer comments, provide accurate data and references, disclose conflicts of interest, and comply with all ethical and publication policies of the Journal. Authors should cooperate fully during the review and revision process and provide clear explanations for any revisions made.

Editorial Responsibilities
Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts receive a fair, confidential, and unbiased evaluation. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit and are made without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, political beliefs, or any other personal characteristics of the authors.
Editors maintain the confidentiality of all submissions and ensure that any conflicts of interest are appropriately managed throughout the editorial process.

Confidentiality
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials are treated as confidential documents. Information concerning a manuscript is disclosed only to individuals directly involved in the editorial and peer review process. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless otherwise agreed by all parties.

Ethical Standards
The peer review process is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, and academic professionalism. The Journal is committed to identifying and addressing plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, and other forms of research misconduct at every stage of the editorial process.
Through its double-blind peer review system, Readings in Political Economy seeks to ensure that every published article meets the highest standards of scholarly quality, integrity, and academic excellence.