Journal of Stability Studies and Public Policy (JSSPP) applies a double-blind peer review system to ensure academic quality, research integrity, objectivity, and the scholarly relevance of all published articles. In this process, the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review procedure.

JSSPP regards peer review not only as a selection mechanism but also as a constructive academic dialogue aimed at improving the quality of scholarly work through interaction between authors, reviewers, and editors. Therefore, each manuscript is evaluated based on academic rigor, methodological soundness, ethical standards, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editors. At this stage, manuscripts are assessed based on:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Originality and scientific contribution
• Relevance to Stability Studies, public policy, governance, development, education, and related fields
• Initial academic quality
• Compliance with author guidelines
• Compliance with publication ethics standards

JSSPP aims to provide a desk review decision within a maximum of three working days after submission. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum academic standards or fall outside the journal scope may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection).

2. Similarity Check and Publication Ethics Assessment

All manuscripts that pass the initial screening are checked using plagiarism detection software to identify potential issues such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, data fabrication, or other ethical violations.

JSSPP adheres strictly to international publication ethics standards. Manuscripts found to violate ethical guidelines may be rejected prior to peer review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality of the research
• Scientific significance and contribution
• Relevance to current literature and academic development
• Conceptual and theoretical soundness
• Research design and methodological quality
• Validity of analysis and interpretation
• Clarity of academic argumentation
• Theoretical, practical, and policy implications

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The typical review period ranges from 2 to 6 weeks, depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

4. Editorial Evaluation

In addition to reviewer assessments, the editorial team conducts an independent evaluation to ensure consistency, methodological validity, conceptual clarity, and alignment with the journal’s academic standards and identity.

This evaluation may include:

• Logical consistency of arguments
• Adequacy of theoretical framework
• Appropriateness of research methodology
• Validity of results interpretation
• Consistency between data, analysis, and conclusions
• Scholarly contribution and originality
• Relevance to current academic discourse

Additional revisions may be requested to enhance clarity, rigor, and academic contribution.

5. Resolution of Reviewer Disagreement

In cases of significant disagreement between reviewers, the editorial team may:

• Assign additional reviewers
• Consult members of the editorial board
• Conduct internal editorial discussions

This ensures that all editorial decisions are fair, balanced, and academically justified.

6. Author Revision

Authors requested to revise their manuscripts must submit:

• Revised manuscript
• Response to reviewers document
• Response to editor (if required)

Authors are expected to provide clear, structured, and academically supported responses to all comments and recommendations.

7. Final Decision

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by reviewers, editors, or both depending on the extent of revisions required. Final publication decisions are based on:

• Reviewer recommendations
• Editorial assessment
• Quality of revisions
• Compliance with journal standards and ethics
• Editorial board considerations

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure that all published articles meet the journal’s academic and ethical standards.

8. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, whether academic, professional, institutional, or personal, and must withdraw from the review process if such conflicts exist.

JSSPP is committed to maintaining independence, transparency, and fairness throughout the editorial and peer review process.

9. Commitment to Academic Quality

JSSPP is committed to promoting high-quality scholarly publishing based on academic rigor, research integrity, transparency, and ethical standards. The journal encourages reviewers and editors to provide constructive, critical, objective, and evidence-based feedback to support authors in producing high-quality research that contributes meaningfully to Stability Studies, public policy, governance, development, education, and related fields.