The Journal of Political Theory applies a peer-review policy, whereby all articles published in the Journal (printed and online) are reviewed. The journal conducts double-anonymized peer reviews where the reviewer of the article does not know information about the author of the article and vice versa.

- Process of editing and peer reviewing articles in the printed Journal

The basic process includes the following steps:

   Step 1: Receive the submitted manuscript, check for duplicate content

   Step 2: Preliminary appraisal of the manuscript

   Step 3: Critique the contentof the manuscript

   Step 4: Respond to the author

   Step 5: Assign editors

   Step 6: Editingmanuscript

   Step 7: Ask for expert opinion (double-anonymized peer review)

   Step 8: Review the manuscript

   Step 9: Discuss with authors

   Step 10: Complete the draft

   Step 11: Develop table of contents

   Step 12: Translate table of contents and abstracts into English

   Step 13: Designing

   Step 14: Proofreading

   Step 15: Printing and legal copyrighting

- Process of editing and peer reviewing articles for the Online Journal

  The basic process includes the following steps:

   Step 1: Receive the submitted manuscript, check for duplicate content

   Step 2: Preliminary appraisal of the manuscript

   Step 3: Critique the contentof the manuscript

   Step 4: Respond to the author

   Step 5: Editing

   Step 6: Review the draft

   Step 7: Publishing on the web

In the preliminary appraisal and check for duplicate content step, the Journal's Editorial Board evaluates the articles and evaluates the degree to which they meet the basic requirements of science, politics, legality, professional relevance, layout, structure, and volume.

Articles have a high rate of duplication that do not satisfy the above conditions will not pass the preliminary review round and the Journal will send a rejection response to the author.

- Articles that pass the preliminary evaluation round and meet the conditions will be sent for peer review. Expert reviewers base their review on a system of specific criteria to evaluate the article, specifically on the following aspects:

   + The article's suitability with the Journal’s principles, aims and scopes.

   + The appropriateness of the article title and abstract.

   + The originality, logic and consistency of the article

   + There is no misleading political or legal content

   + Rationality and consistency between scientific arguments and practice

   + Regarding the update of data and relevant situational context

   + Contributing to forecasts, solutions, and recommendations

   + Citations, notes, and references follow the Journal's regulations

   + Suggestions for improving the article

After the review stage, the articles are classified as follows:

   (i) Usable article

   (ii) The article needs to be edited and supplemented according to requested recommendation

   (iii) The article cannot be used

At the editing stage, after receiving criticism and comments, the article will be technically edited by the editor for presentation, specialized content, academic literary aspects, etc.

After-ward, the article is approved by the Head of the editorial department, Deputy Editor-in-chief, and finally the Editor-in-chief.

The table of contents for each issue will be approved by the Chairman of the Editorial Council.