Journal of State Democracy (JSD) employs a rigorous double‐blind peer review system to ensure that all published articles meet the highest standards of scholarly quality, originality, and relevance. Manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening, followed by anonymized evaluation by independent experts, and subsequent editorial decisions based on reviewers’ recommendations.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by a member of the editorial team to confirm that it aligns with JSD’s aims and scope namely, advancing theory and empirical research on democratic governance at state and subnational levels. Submissions that do not meet basic criteria for quality, ethical compliance, or topical relevance may be desk rejected without external review. Authors are advised to verify that their title, abstract, and overall study design are clearly articulated and conform to the submission checklist before submission.

Ethical and Administrative Checks

Before peer review, the editor confirms that

• All authors have provided written consent and meet authorship criteria.
• Necessary permissions have been obtained for reproduced material (e.g., figures, datasets).
• Ethical approval has been secured where human or animal subjects are involved.
• There are no undisclosed conflicts of interest or duplicate submissions.

Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Manuscripts passing the initial checks are anonymized (both author and reviewer identities concealed) and assigned to at least two qualified reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers are selected to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure an objective evaluation. Invitations specify the expected timeline (usually 4–6 weeks) and remind reviewers of their responsibility to maintain confidentiality and declare any potential conflicts.

Conduct of the Review

Reviewers assess submissions on criteria including originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, clarity of presentation, and adherence to publication ethics. They provide:

• Detailed commentary on strengths and weaknesses.
• Clear recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject).
• Suggestions for improvement, where applicable.

Reviewers must avoid personal or derogatory remarks and base critiques on scholarly arguments.

Editorial Decision

The handling editor integrates reviewers’ reports, weighing their assessments against JSD’s editorial standards. Possible outcomes are:

• Accept (rare, if manuscript requires no changes).
• Minor Revision (authors address specified issues).
• Major Revision (substantive reworking required).
• Reject (manuscript falls short in fundamental aspects).

Authors receive anonymized reports summarizing reviewers’ comments and the editor’s decision. Revised manuscripts are re‐evaluated by the original reviewers or, if necessary, additional experts.

Finalization and Publication

Once all revisions satisfactorily address reviewers’ and editor’s concerns, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting and typesetting. The final version is then scheduled for publication in one of JSD.

By adhering to this structured, transparent process, the Journal of State Democracy maintains scholarly integrity and ensures that published works contribute meaningfully to the study of democratic governance.