Review Policy

Nation State: Journal of International Studies applies a structured and multi-phase manuscript reviewing procedure designed to uphold scholarly quality and academic integrity. The process consists of three interconnected stages: Round 1 (Editorial Review), Round 2 (Peer Review), and Round 3 (Discrepancy Resolution).

Round 1: Editorial Review

In the first stage of the review process, the editorial board conducts an internal screening to determine whether the manuscript is eligible for external peer review. This screening focuses on the following five criteria:

  • Scope and Fit: Assesment of its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, particularly its contribution to the discipline of International Studies. Submissions that do not align with the journal’s focus or target audience are desk-rejected at this stage.
  • Structure and Coherence: An evaluation the overall organization of the manuscript, including the clarity of the research question, logical flow of arguments, consistency in structure (introduction, literature review, methodology, analysis, and conclusion), and internal coherence.
  • Readability and Ethical Consideration: The language, grammar, and overall readability of the manuscript are reviewed. In addition, the editorial board checks for compliance with ethical standards, such as proper citation practices, absence of plagiarism, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
  • Source of Reference: The quality, currency, and relevance of cited references are examined. Manuscripts are expected to engage with recent and credible scholarly literature, particularly peer-reviewed journals and authoritative sources in the field.
  • Alignment with Current Scientific Trends: The manuscript is also evaluated in terms of its alignment with ongoing debates, emerging issues, or contemporary developments in the discipline. While originality is key, the work should also demonstrate awareness of and engagement with current academic discourse.

If a manuscript meets the above criteria with only minor shortcomings, the editor may request limited revisions before forwarding the manuscript to peer reviewers. Submissions with serious deficiencies will be declined at this stage without entering the peer review process.

Round 2: Peer Review

In this stage, the editor assigns at least two expert reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area to conduct a thorough and critical evaluation. Anonymity is maintained throughout the process to promote impartial evaluation. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Revision Required (minor or major)

    • Minor Revision: Requires modest changes, such as clarifying certain arguments or correcting references.
    • Major Revision: Involves substantial restructuring, deeper analytical engagement, or significant methodological improvement. Authors are expected to address each comment in a point-by-point response and return a revised manuscript within the assigned deadline.

  • Resubmit for Review: If the manuscript shows potential but requires extensive modifications—such as changes to research design, theoretical framing, or data presentation—it will be returned to the author for revision. A resubmitted manuscript will undergo a new round of peer review.

  • Decline Submission: Manuscripts may be rejected if they demonstrate critical flaws, such as a lack of originality, insufficient methodological soundness, incoherent argumentation, poor academic writing, or ethical concerns. Rejected manuscripts are not eligible for reconsideration.

Round 3: Discrepancy Resolution

If there is a significant divergence between peer reviewers’ recommendations (e.g., one recommends revision, the other rejection), the editor may initiate a third round of evaluation. This may involve:

  • Appointing a third reviewer for an independent assessment, or
  • Undertaking an editorial adjudication, weighing the current reviews against the manuscript’s content

This stage ensures an objective and balanced resolution before the final editorial decision is made.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

All manuscripts submitted to Nation State: Journal of International Studies are assessed using the following criteria:

  • Originality & Contribution: The manuscript should present original insights and contribute meaningfully to existing literature, whether through theoretical development, empirical findings, or methodological innovation.
  • Significance: The research question, methodology, and theoretical engagement must be relevant and meaningful within the discipline of International Relations.
  • Coherence: The argumentation should be logically structured and internally consistent, with a clear and focused narrative.
  • Communication & Readability: The manuscript must clearly convey ideas using precise academic language, proper grammar, and a readable structure suitable for a scholarly audience.

Timeline

Nation State: Journal of International Studies aims to ensure an efficient and timely review process. The average review period is typically between 2 to 4 months from the point of reviewer confirmation. However, shorter turnaround times may occur if reviewers are available and willing to submit their evaluations earlier. While timeliness is a priority, the journal equally emphasizes thoroughness and academic rigor throughout the process.