Peer Review Policy

1. Overview and Scope

Social Thought and Policy Review (STPR) is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary academic journal dedicated to the critical examination of social, political, and economic issues shaping contemporary society . We publish original research, theoretical papers, and critical reviews that address pressing policy challenges and contribute to informed public discourse . Our scope encompasses topics including social theory, public governance, economic policy, human rights, international relations, cultural change, and welfare policy innovations .

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest scholarly standards through a fair, thorough, and constructive peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to STPR that fall within the journal's aims and scope and meet basic submission requirements will be subject to this process .

2. Peer Review Model

STPR employs a triple-anonymous peer review model (triple-blind review) .

In this model:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.

  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

  • The identities of the authors are also concealed from the handling editor during the initial review process.

This rigorous approach ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scholarly merit, originality, and contribution to the field, eliminating any potential bias related to author identity, reputation, gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation for both the reviewers and the editor making the initial assessment.

3. Pre-review Screening (Desk Review)

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial office to determine whether it meets the journal's aims and scope and the requirements for triple-blind review .

This preliminary check assesses the manuscript for:

  • Fit with Aims and Scope: Relevance to the journal's focus on social thought, policy analysis, and interdisciplinary research.

  • Adherence to Submission Guidelines: Compliance with formatting, referencing style, and structure requirements.

  • Anonymity: Confirmation that the manuscript has been properly prepared for triple-blind review (see Section 4).

  • Plagiarism Screening: All submissions are screened for originality to ensure the work is not previously published nor under consideration elsewhere .

  • Ethical Compliance: Verification that research involving human or animal subjects includes appropriate ethical approval and that all authors have consented to publication .

An editor may desk reject a submission if it does not meet minimum standards of quality or fit the journal's scope. Manuscripts that contain identifying information compromising the blind review will be returned to authors for correction before further processing .

4. Author Responsibilities: Preparing an Anonymous Manuscript

To facilitate triple-blind review, authors are responsible for preparing a version of their manuscript stripped of all identifying information.

Authors must ensure that:

  1. Author Names and Affiliations: These are removed from the title page, headers, footers, and document properties.

  2. Self-Citations: References to the authors' own work are cited in the third person (e.g., "As Smith (2020) demonstrated...") or temporarily anonymized.

  3. Acknowledgments: These are removed during the review process and can be reinserted upon acceptance.

  4. Institutional Details: Any language or identifying details that might reveal the authors' institutional affiliation should be generalized.

  5. File Properties: Metadata in the manuscript file must be removed prior to submission.

Authors will be required to upload a separate, non-anonymized title page during submission through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS) . These files will only be accessible to editorial staff and will not be shared with reviewers.

5. The Review Process

Once a manuscript passes the initial pre-screening, it is assigned to a handling editor with relevant subject expertise. The editor receives the anonymized manuscript and does not have access to the authors' identities at this stage.

The editor will then invite at least two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript and are instructed that they must not contact the authors.

  • Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their publication history and expertise.

  • Review Timeline: Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluation within a specified timeframe. The journal strives to provide an initial decision in a timely manner.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities and Guidelines

Reviewers play a crucial role in upholding the quality of STPR. By agreeing to review, they commit to the following ethical and procedural guidelines:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers must not discuss the content or share the manuscript with any third party.

  • Anonymity: Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors. If authors' identity becomes accidentally apparent, reviewers should notify the editor and continue evaluation based solely on content.

  • Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews should be objective, constructive, and courteous. Reviewers should clearly explain and support their judgments.

  • Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should inform the editor immediately if they identify a potential conflict of interest and withdraw from the review process.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers should accept or decline invitations promptly and submit reviews by agreed-upon deadlines.

  • Originality: Reviewers should alert the editor to any suspected issues of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical misconduct.

7. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Significance: Does the work offer a new contribution to social thought and policy debates?

  • Clarity of Argument: Is the central thesis or research question clearly articulated and logically developed?

  • Methodology and Evidence: Is the research approach or theoretical framework appropriate and well-executed?

  • Engagement with Literature: Does the manuscript engage critically with existing scholarship?

  • Quality of Presentation: Is the manuscript clearly written, well-organized, and free of errors?

  • Practical Relevance: Does the work inform decision-making or advance understanding of complex societal dynamics ?

8. Editorial Decision and Author Notification

Based on the reviewer reports, the handling editor will make an editorial recommendation. At the point of decision, the editor will be "unblinded" to learn the authors' identities, allowing consideration of any potential conflicts of interest.

The final decision will be communicated to the corresponding author, along with anonymized reviewer reports. The possible decisions are:

  • Accept (with or without minor revisions)

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Reject

Authors are requested to submit any revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. For revised submissions, authors must resubmit an anonymized version of their manuscript to maintain the blind process for any subsequent review rounds.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a decision was based on a significant factual error or procedural flaw may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must provide clear justification for reconsideration. The journal follows Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for handling complaints.

10. Handling of Competing Interests

All authors must declare any potential competing interests (financial, professional, or personal) in a separate, non-anonymized file during submission. Reviewers must disclose any interests that could compromise their impartiality. Editors with a competing interest in a manuscript will be recused from handling it.

11. Preprints and Prior Publication

STPR will consider manuscripts previously posted on preprint servers, provided authors inform the editorial team at submission. Submitting a manuscript under consideration elsewhere constitutes a violation of the journal's ethical policy .

12. AI Use by Authors

The use of AI tools in manuscript preparation should be disclosed in accordance with evolving scholarly norms. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content. AI tools cannot be listed as authors.

13. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All submitted manuscripts are treated as privileged and confidential documents. STPR is committed to protecting the privacy of authors, reviewers, and readers. Personal information collected through journal operations is used exclusively for publishing purposes and is never sold or shared with third parties, except as required by law .

The identities of authors are protected from reviewers and editors during the initial review stage; the identities of reviewers are protected from authors at all times.

14. Publication and Journal Information

Social Thought and Policy Review is published semi-annually by Academic Confluence in both print and online formats . The journal is open access, providing free and immediate online access to all content . Authors retain copyright under a Creative Commons license, granting the journal the right of first publication .