Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Guidelines

All research articles, along with most other article types, published in Philosophy & Ideology Research undergo peer review. Each research article must be assessed by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

The submissions undergo a quality check for completeness before being sent to an Editor for evaluation of their suitability for peer review. The editorial board has complete control over the journal's scientific quality control. If the Editor has a conflict of interest, such as being listed as an author or having any other competing interest with the manuscript, another Editorial Board member will be assigned to oversee the peer review process. Editors will take peer-reviewed reports into account when making their decisions but are not obligated to follow the reviewers' opinions or recommendations. Authors will receive the peer review reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Type of Peer Review

Philosophy & Ideology Research uses a double-anonymous peer review process: reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. Editors manage the review process and conflicts of interest.

Editorial Structure and Role

Editor-in-Chief:
The Editor-in-Chief is the highest-ranking member of the editorial team. They manage the editorial team, define the journal’s scope and standards, decide publication priorities, and oversee operations and policies.

Associate Editors:
Associate Editors (AEs) support the Editor-in-Chief as subject experts. They oversee assigned manuscripts, manage the review and revision process, assess manuscript quality, obtain peer reviews, and make recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief regarding acceptance or rejection.

Guest Editors:
Guest Editors ensure the quality of special content publications. Contributors with accepted proposals are appointed as Guest Editors. Approval or rejection of proposals is determined by the Editor-in-Chief based on editorial board reviews.

Editorial Board Members:
Editorial Board Members evaluate manuscript quality (including scope alignment), solicit peer reviews, request revisions, and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers:
Reviewers provide feedback, suggest improvements, and recommend acceptance, rejection, or revisions. While the final decision rests with the editor, reviewers significantly influence outcomes.

Peer Review and Editorial Process

The following outlines the first-round review process for manuscripts submitted to Philosophy & Ideology Research（PIR）:

Step 1. Quality Check (QC) [1 day]
The editorial office verifies submission completeness and screens for plagiarism using iThenticate. Submissions with a similarity index >15% (excluding references) are rejected, even if due to self-plagiarism.

Step 2. Editor Assignment [1 day]
QC-approved manuscripts are sent to the Editor-in-Chief for scientific evaluation. The manuscript may be rejected (low quality/scope mismatch), returned for major revision, or assigned to an Associate Editor.

Step 3. Reviewer Selection [3–4 days]
The handling editor selects at least two independent external reviewers based on expertise and invites them to review the manuscript.

Step 4. Review Deadline [Timing varies]
The review period varies with reviewer availability and the revisions required. The Associate Editor then recommends one of five decisions to the Editor-in-Chief:
(a) Acceptance
(b) Minor revisions (14-day deadline)
(c) Major revisions (1-month deadline)
(d) Rejection with resubmission encouragement (6-month deadline)
(e) Rejection

Step 5. Final Decision Notification
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, and the editorial office sends the decision letter to all authors.

Step 6. Final Decision Implementation

Major Revisions: Revised manuscripts undergo re-review by original reviewers (timing depends on reviewer availability and the revisions required). Incomplete revisions may lead to rejection.

Minor Revisions: Assessed by the Associate Editor without additional review.

Resubmissions: May involve different reviewers or editors.

Accepted Manuscripts: Proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and proofing.

Special Issues: Follow the same review protocol as regular submissions.

Note: Timelines are guidelines and may vary.

Appeal Process

Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office (editorialoffice@masonpublish.org）. Decisions on novelty or scope disputes are unlikely to be reconsidered.