Peer Review Process

To maintain the scientific quality and academic integrity of Democratic Governance, all manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review. This process ensures that only relevant, original, and high-quality research is accepted for publication. Reviewers are expected to remain objective and follow the journal’s principles of publication ethics.

Review procedure

Double-blind review – authors do not know the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers do not know the authors.

Initial screening – the Editor-in-Chief (or Deputy Editor-in-Chief, in case of conflict of interest) evaluates the submission for relevance, compliance with the journal’s aims, formatting rules, and originality. Articles that pass this stage receive a registration code, and author details are removed.

Reviewer assignment – anonymised manuscripts are sent to one editorial board member responsible for the field, as well as to two external reviewers (Ukrainian or international scholars with a doctoral degree and expertise in the article’s subject area). Reviewers cannot be affiliated with the authors’ institution or have any conflict of interest.

Evaluation criteria – reviewers assess:

  • consistency of content with the article’s title and stated topic;
  • novelty and relevance of the research problem;
  • validity and practical significance of results;
  • overall value for the academic community.

Review outcomes – reviewers complete a standard form and choose one of four decisions:

  • accept;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • revise and resubmit (major revisions required);
  • reject.

Negative or revision recommendations must be accompanied by a reasoned written explanation. All reviews (signed electronically or conventionally) are archived for three years.

Communication with authors – the editorial office sends the review results to the authors, without disclosing reviewer identities. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated; however, revision does not guarantee acceptance. If changes are insufficient, the paper may be rejected.

Final decision – the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewers’ recommendations. If the Editor-in-Chief has any conflict of interest (e.g., as author, co-author, family member, or professional ties), the decision is taken independently by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Review timeline

Usual review period: 2-4 weeks

Median time to first editorial decision: 4-8 weeks

 

STANDARD REVIEW FORM