Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The number of reviewers typically used in reviewing submissions is at least one person. The principles for recruiting reviewers and selecting reviewers for a particular manuscript is the responsibility of the Section Editors and are based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of authors and editors, and the Editor’s knowledge of a reviewer’s past performance. As part of our editorial procedure, we confer with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages or conversations contain confidential information, which should be regarded as such.

The criteria by which reviewers are asked to judge submissions are good English, knowledge of international relations and global issues related to international relations issues, currently active researchers, and have one or more recent publications in peer-reviewed journals.

We may ask authors to recommend suitable reviewers for the submission of their manuscript. When recommending reviewers, the following points should be considered:

  • authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have a conflict of interest, for example, a close collaborator or colleague.
  • recommended reviewers should not be at the same institute as any of the authors listed on the manuscript.
  • institutional email addresses should be provided for recommended reviewers, wherever possible.
  • The typical time taken to conduct the reviews is up to 2-4 months.

Confidentiality

The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. As the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one who is not directly involved with the manuscript (including colleagues and other experts in the field) should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the Section Editor. Reviewers must not take any confidential information they have gained in the review process and use it before the paper is published. Even after publication, unless they have the permission of the authors to use other information, reviewers may only use publicly published data (i.e. the contents of the published article) and not information from any earlier drafts.

Publication Process

At least two reviewers independently review every manuscript submitted to JHI in the form of a "double-blind review." The corresponding author(s) will then be notified via email when such a process is about to be commenced.

Afterwards, a pre-assigned editor will enrol a suitable reviewer to examine the submitted manuscript thoroughly on the condition that one has accepted the reviewing request. A recommendation then shall be noted by the reviewer on options whether one’s manuscript is ready to proceed for publication, amendments, or rejections. Nevertheless, the final decision will be concluded based on their reports. In certain cases, the editor may submit an article for review to another, the third reviewer, before making a decision, if necessary. The corresponding author(s) shall be notified immediately of any decision.

If an amendment or revision is required, the corresponding author(s) will have to submit the revised version within the time given (around two weeks since the notification sent by the pre-assigned editor). After received, the revised will be subject to further reviews by a third reviewer, if necessary, as stated and/or directed back to the pre-assigned editor for the final verdict, which would also be made upon reports/recommendations.

If a specific manuscript is approved further for publication, it will be examined for copyediting and proofreading where necessary typographical and grammatical corrections will be conducted. A pre-assigned editor will enrol a suitable copyeditor and proofreader to undergo such procedures.

As soon as every procedure mentioned above has been met, the manuscript will be scheduled for publication in the next issue.