Reviewer Resources
The Journal of State Management (JSM) is committed to supporting reviewers in delivering fair, rigorous, and constructive peer reviews. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that published research is scientifically sound, ethically conducted, and relevant to the Journal's aims and scope.
This Reviewer Resource Centre provides practical guidance, evaluation tools, ethical checklists, templates, and reference materials. Reviewers are encouraged to consult these materials before accepting a review invitation and throughout the assessment process.
Evaluate whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the Journal, including topics such as:
Possible concerns include:
Before submitting your review, please confirm the following:
A constructive review should help both the editor and the authors improve the quality of the manuscript.
Provide a brief summary of: the purpose of the study; the research methods; the principal findings; and the overall contribution. This confirms your understanding of the manuscript and provides context for your comments.
Focus first on issues that affect the scientific validity of the manuscript:
The manuscript addresses an important topic in public administration and has the potential to make a valuable contribution. The research question is relevant, and the methodology is generally appropriate. However, several aspects require further clarification before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
The methodology section should provide more information regarding data collection procedures and sampling techniques.
The discussion should better explain the implications of the findings for public administration practice and policy.
JSM endorses the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles and encourages reviewers to familiarize themselves with internationally recognized guidance on ethical peer review.
JSM encourages reviewers to follow five guiding principles throughout the review process:
Google Scholar
Dimensions
ORCID
LOCKSS
Creative Commons
The theoretical framework requires further development. The manuscript cites several classic studies but does not sufficiently engage with recent international literature published during the past five years.