Peer Review Policy

Manuscripts submitted to the Regional Studies Journal undergo editorial and scholarly evaluation to ensure the quality, originality, academic relevance, and methodological soundness of published research.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, and compliance with the journal’s basic academic, methodological, and formatting requirements. The Editorial Board may reject a manuscript at this stage if it falls outside the journal’s scope or does not meet the minimum academic and editorial standards.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to independent specialists for Double-Blind Peer Review. Under this system, reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board on the basis of their academic expertise, subject specialization, and relevance to the manuscript, while ensuring independence and avoiding conflicts of interest.

3. Confidentiality of the Review Process

All peer-review materials, correspondence, and reviewer reports are treated as confidential. The identities of reviewers and the contents of their reports must not be disclosed or used outside the editorial and peer-review process.

4. Review Criteria

Depending on the nature and discipline of the manuscript, reviewers are asked to assess the following criteria, among others:

• Originality and scholarly contribution.
• Clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions, or hypotheses.
• Appropriateness and soundness of the methodology.
• Quality of analysis and conclusions.
• Quality, relevance, and currency of sources and references.
• Clarity, organization, and language quality.
• Compliance with academic standards and research and publication ethics.
• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

5. Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept without major revisions.
• Accept subject to specified revisions.
• Revise and resubmit, subject to further evaluation.
• Reject.

The Editorial Board makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers’ reports and the editorial assessment, taking into account the quality of the manuscript and its compliance with the journal’s standards.

6. Reviewers and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are not assigned manuscripts when a conflict of interest may compromise the impartiality of the review process. Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review.

7. Review Time

The Editorial Board seeks to complete the peer-review process as efficiently as possible while allowing sufficient time to identify appropriate reviewers and obtain rigorous scholarly assessments. Review times may vary depending on reviewer availability, response times, and the nature of the revisions required.

8. Revisions and Re-evaluation

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond to the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editorial Board. Depending on the nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Editorial Independence

The Editorial Board retains final responsibility for editorial decisions concerning publication. Passing any individual stage of the editorial or peer-review process does not by itself constitute a guarantee of final publication until all required editorial and review procedures have been completed.

10. Peer-Review Queries and Complaints

Queries or complaints concerning the peer-review process are considered by the Editorial Board in accordance with the journal’s policies, with due regard for confidentiality, impartiality, and the rights of authors and reviewers.