Peer-Review

Peer-Review Evaluation Process

All submissions to the European Journal of Political Culture (EJPC) are initially reviewed by the Editor and by Members of the Editorial Team. The initial stage is aimed, on the one hand, at identifying the necessary expertise of the potential Reviewers, and on the other hand, at rejecting from the very beginning the manuscripts which do not comply with the aspects of the Editorial Policy. If the manuscript has not been rejected in the initial stage, then it will be sent out for blind peer-review evaluation.

A Peer-Review process is defined as the evaluation process in which neither the Author(s), nor the Reviewer(s) know the identity of the other(s). The EJPC peer-review process consists in sending the submitted paper manuscript to two independent Reviewers who have high expertise in the manuscript’s field of research. The two independent Reviewers do not have any information about who the Author(s) of the submitted paper manuscript is/are. The Author(s) do not have any information about who the Reviewer(s) of his/her/their submitted paper manuscript is/are. Each Peer-Reviewer receives a copy of the submitted paper manuscript from which any personal and/or institutional information about the Author(s) has been deliberately eliminated by the Editorial Team. The final peer-review evaluation result consists in a recommendation of "acceptance"/"rejection"/"acceptance under conditions" which each Reviewer has to justify. The Reviewers may ask the Author(s) to provide more theoretical and/or experimental arguments, data or any other proof in supporting their research claims and/or results. The Authors may be asked to change parts of their papers in order to achieve high standards in their presentations. Any such requirement will be presented to the Author(s).

The evaluation documents provided by each Reviewer are discussed by the Editorial Team and the paper is accepted for publication in the conditions specified and required by the Peer-Reviewers.

In the case that the Peer-Reviewers provide opposite/contradictory evaluations, the peer-review process may be re-iterated with other Reviewers. In the case of opposite/contradictory evaluations, the Editorial Team has also the possibility to ask an Arbiter (a third Reviewer) to recommend a solution concerning the evaluation of the manuscript.

The Author(s) receive(s) a copy of each EJPC Peer-Review Evaluation Document which does not contain any personal and/or institutional information about the Reviewer. They are requested to obey the requirements of the Reviewers and provide updated versions of the manuscript in due time as specified in the paper (manuscript) revising invitation letter.