Review Guidelines

The International Journal for Research in Politics & International Affairs (IJRPIA) upholds ethical review standards consistent with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), global research integrity frameworks, and responsible academic publishing practices.

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic credibility. Reviewers serve as independent subject experts responsible for ensuring the rigor, originality, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Peer Review Model

The International Journal for Research in Politics & International Affairs follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process:

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers.

  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.

  • Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and academic merit.

The review process is conducted transparently, fairly, and without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal beliefs.

Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to uphold the following responsibilities:

Academic Integrity

Reviewers must:

  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit

  • Assess theoretical contribution, analytical rigor, and academic relevance

  • Avoid personal bias or ideological influence in the review process

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are considered confidential intellectual property. Reviewers must:

  • Not share, distribute, or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized parties

  • Not use unpublished data for personal research or professional gain

  • Securely delete manuscript files after completing the review

Confidentiality obligations remain in effect even after the review process has concluded.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Reviewers must decline review invitations if any potential conflicts of interest exist, including:

  • Direct collaboration with authors within the past three years

  • Institutional affiliation overlap

  • Financial interests or funding relationships

  • Competitive academic or professional interests

  • Personal relationships that may compromise impartiality

All potential conflicts must be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief before proceeding with the review.

Ethical Vigilance and Research Misconduct

Reviewers play an important role in safeguarding publication ethics by identifying potential research misconduct, including:

  • Plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work

  • Data fabrication or falsification

  • Manipulated figures, tables, or statistical outputs

  • Redundant or duplicate publication

  • Undisclosed AI-generated content affecting research integrity

  • Citation manipulation or coercive citation practices

  • Ethical violations in human subject or policy research

Any concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office and must not be communicated directly to the authors.

Evaluation Standards

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to internationally recognized academic standards.

 Theoretical Contribution

  • Clear identification of the research problem or gap

  • Contribution to political science, governance, or international relations scholarship

  • Advancement of existing theoretical frameworks

Methodological Rigor

  • Appropriate research design

  • Valid and transparent research methodology

  • Robust qualitative or quantitative analysis

  • Replicability and research transparency

Policy and Practical Relevance

  • Contribution to political analysis or public policy understanding

  • Relevance to governance, diplomacy, or international relations

  • Practical implications for policymakers or institutions where applicable

Literature and Referencing Standards

  • Use of credible academic sources

  • Inclusion of recent scholarly literature

  • Balanced and ethical citation practices

Clarity and Scholarly Communication

  • Logical structure and organization

  • Clear development of arguments

  • Professional academic writing and presentation

Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must ensure responsible use of artificial intelligence tools during the review process. Reviewers must:

  • Not upload manuscripts to AI platforms or third-party tools

  • Not use generative AI tools in ways that compromise confidentiality

  • Ensure any AI-assisted language editing does not alter the intellectual integrity of the review

Timeliness and Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the designated timeline (typically 6–7 weeks).

  • If additional time is required, extensions should be requested promptly.

  • Reviewers must maintain professional and respectful communication throughout the process.

Failure to meet review deadlines without notice may result in removal from the reviewer panel.

Decision Recommendations

Reviewers must provide one of the following structured recommendations:

  • Accept without revision

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

All recommendations must be supported by clear and evidence-based justification aligned with the journal’s evaluation criteria.

Accountability and Transparency

The editorial office maintains records of review activities to ensure accountability and compliance with ethical publishing standards.

Repeated unethical behavior may result in:

  • Removal from the reviewer database

  • Reporting to affiliated institutions (in serious cases)

  • Notification to relevant academic bodies where appropriate