Journal of Stability Studies and Public Policy (JSSPP) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the academic quality, research integrity, objectivity, and relevance of published articles. The editorial process consists of several stages, beginning with administrative screening by the Managing Editor, followed by editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, academic assessment by the Editorial Board, and external peer review by independent reviewers.

The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the double-blind peer review process.

1. Submission and Administrative Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JSSPP are first examined by the Managing Editor. This stage serves as the journal’s initial quality-control process and focuses on the completeness, technical conformity, and basic compliance of the submission.

The Managing Editor checks:

• Completeness of the submitted files and required information
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines
• Manuscript structure and formatting
• Author names, affiliations, and submission information
• Abstract and keywords
• Tables, figures, and supplementary materials, where applicable
• References and basic citation consistency
• Declarations relating to ethics and conflicts of interest
• Other administrative requirements specified by the journal

If the submission is incomplete or does not comply with the basic submission requirements, the Managing Editor may return the manuscript to the author for correction or completion before it proceeds to editorial assessment.

Manuscripts that substantially fail to meet the journal’s submission requirements may be rejected at the administrative screening stage.

JSSPP aims to complete the initial administrative screening within three working days of submission. This three-day target refers only to the initial administrative decision and does not represent the duration of the full editorial or peer review process.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the administrative screening are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for an initial editorial assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates:

• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
• Relevance to Stability Studies and related fields
• Originality and potential scholarly contribution
• Clarity of the research problem or central argument
• Overall academic quality
• Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual foundation
• Suitability for further editorial consideration

Following this assessment, the Editor-in-Chief may:

1. Reject the manuscript without external peer review
2. Return the manuscript to the author for substantial preliminary improvement
3. Forward the manuscript to the Editorial Board for further academic assessment

Passing the administrative screening does not guarantee that a manuscript will proceed to peer review.

3. Editorial Board Assessment

Manuscripts considered suitable by the Editor-in-Chief may be assessed by one or more members of the Editorial Board with relevant expertise.

The Editorial Board evaluates the manuscript in relation to:

• Scholarly significance and relevance
• Contribution to Stability Studies or related fields
• Conceptual and theoretical strength
• Methodological appropriateness
• Quality and coherence of the academic argument
• Potential contribution to existing literature
• Suitability for external peer review

Following this assessment, the Editorial Board may recommend that the manuscript:

• Proceed to external peer review
• Be returned to the author for preliminary revision
• Be rejected because it does not meet the journal’s academic standards or scope

The Editorial Board assessment is intended to ensure that manuscripts sent to external reviewers meet the journal’s basic scholarly threshold.

4. Similarity and Research Integrity Screening

Before external peer review, manuscripts may undergo similarity and research integrity checks using appropriate tools and editorial procedures.

The similarity assessment is intended to identify potential plagiarism, substantial textual overlap, duplicate publication, redundant publication, or other inappropriate reuse of published material.

The editorial team may also examine issues relating to:

• Authorship
• Citation practices
• Research ethics
• Data integrity
• Conflicts of interest
• Other potential forms of research or publication misconduct

Where serious concerns are identified, the manuscript may be returned to the author, withheld from peer review, or rejected in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics and Academic Integrity policy.

5. Double-Blind External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

JSSPP uses a double-blind review system. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Significance and relevance of the research
• Engagement with relevant literature
• Theoretical or conceptual foundation
• Research design and methodological rigor
• Validity of analysis and interpretation
• Clarity and coherence of the academic argument
• Quality of discussion
• Theoretical, practical, and policy implications
• Overall relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The typical external peer review period is two to six weeks, depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the time required to obtain appropriate review reports.

6. Editorial Evaluation after Peer Review

After external review reports have been received, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the reviewer recommendations together with the Editorial Board’s assessment where appropriate.

Editorial decisions are not based solely on the numerical or categorical recommendation of individual reviewers. The editor considers the substance, consistency, and academic justification of the review reports.

The post-review assessment may consider:

• Consistency between the research problem, methodology, findings, and conclusions
• Methodological adequacy
• Validity of interpretation
• Quality of the discussion
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Quality of the revisions, where applicable
• Compliance with the journal’s academic and ethical standards

7. Reviewer Disagreement

Where reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may:

• Appoint an additional independent reviewer
• Request further assessment from a relevant Editorial Board member
• Conduct an additional editorial evaluation

The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that publication decisions are based on a balanced and academically defensible assessment.

8. Author Revision

When revision is required, authors must submit:

• A revised manuscript
• A point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments

Authors should clearly explain how each substantive comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation is not adopted, an appropriate academic justification should be provided.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, evaluated by the Editorial Board, assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, or undergo a combination of these processes.

9. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is based on the overall editorial and peer review process, including:

• Reviewer reports and recommendations
• Editorial Board assessment
• Editor-in-Chief evaluation
• Quality and completeness of revisions
• Compliance with journal policies and ethical standards
• The manuscript’s overall scholarly contribution

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final publication decision.

The final decision may be:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

A positive recommendation from a reviewer does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

10. Conflicts of Interest

The Managing Editor, Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board members, and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Conflicts may arise from academic, professional, institutional, financial, personal, or other relationships with the authors or their affiliated institutions.

Individuals with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from the corresponding editorial or review process.

JSSPP is committed to maintaining an independent, fair, objective, confidential, and transparent editorial and peer review process.

11. Commitment to Academic Quality

JSSPP is committed to maintaining rigorous standards of academic quality, research integrity, and editorial independence. The multi-stage editorial process is designed to ensure that manuscripts are carefully screened, academically assessed, independently reviewed, and responsibly evaluated before publication.

Through this process, JSSPP seeks to publish rigorous and original scholarship that contributes meaningfully to Stability Studies, public policy, governance, development, education, and related fields.