Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers of articles and review articles (there are minimum of two for a submission) are requested to disclose any potential competing interests that may influence their evaluation of the manuscript. Competing interests include financial, personal, or professional affiliations that could be perceived as having biased the review process. If you have any competing interests related to the manuscript under review, please disclose them in your review. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state so explicitly. Transparency in this regard ensures an unbiased and fair evaluation of the submitted work. Thank you for your diligence in maintaining the integrity of the review process.

Please read the COPE article dealing with Ethics and Responsibility if unsure about Review Process of a double-blind review  here: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

We appreciate your commitment to reviewing articles submitted to "New Perspectives on Political Economy." Your insights are valuable in ensuring the quality and relevance of the content we publish. Please consider the following guidelines as you evaluate the manuscript:

Theoretical Part

  • Assess the literature review's depth and clarity.
  • Evaluate the articulation of the problem, including the main aim, sub-aims, research questions, or hypotheses.
  • Examine connections to existing research and justify the need for investigating the given issue.
  • Identify the potential impacts of overlooking or inadequately addressing the examined phenomenon on science, practice, and policies.

Methodology

  • Evaluate the coherence between the theoretical and methodological sections.
  • Assess the thought process behind choosing the research methods.
  • Scrutinize the uniqueness and innovativeness of applied methods.
  • Examine the sources and representativeness of the data used.
  • Highlight the use of standard methods and the contribution of the research to the field.

Analysis and Results

  • Ensure continuity between the methodological and analytical sections.
  • Evaluate the descriptive quality of the analytical process.
  • Consider the need for detailed explanations of calculations, especially when using standard methods.
  • Assess how results are interpreted and visualized.

Discussion

  • Evaluate the continuity between analytical and discussion sections.
  • Assess the breadth of the discussion, connecting research findings with the theoretical framework.
  • Validate universally applicable assumptions and evaluate the fulfilment of research objectives.
  • Address any identified research limitations.

Conclusion

  • Evaluate the aptness of the conclusion in reflecting on findings.
  • Assess the message and its relation to future research.
  • Look for a concise summary of results and their implications.

References

  • Evaluate the structure, relevance, and topicality of the literature used.
  • Assess the frequency of internet references (gray literature) and the share of cited reputable sources (Web of Science top quartiles).
  • Consider the number of citations from a single author or relevance of "stacked citations".

Please submit your review electronically to ensure high standard of the review process via the OJS platform or directly to the editorial board member within 3 weeks. We appreciate your time and dedication to maintaining the quality of New Perspectives on Political Economy.