Central European Journal of Public Policy

Focus and Scope

The aim of the CEJPP is to provide academic scholars and professionals in different policy fields with the latest theoretical and methodological advancements in public policy supported by sound empirical research. The CEJPP addresses all topics of public policy including civil society, social services and healthcare, environmental protection, education, labour market, immigration, security, public financing and budgeting, administrative reform, performance measurements, governance and others. It is a multidisciplinary and public problems oriented journal which attempts to find a balance between description, explanation and evaluation of public policies and that encourages a wide range of social science approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. Although the journal focuses primarily upon Central Europe, relevant contributions from other geographical areas are also encouraged in order to enhance public policy research in Central Europe.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Student's Work

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Discussion

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Editor's Note

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

News

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The CEJPP accepts original manuscripts with sound theoretical, methodological and empirical grounding. We will not review manuscripts that are currently under review for publication or that have been printed in another English journal. We will consider manuscripts based upon government reports, private studies, or articles in non-English journals. Authors are welcome to e-mail an abstract to the editor-in-chief, prior to formal submission, if they wish for guidance on the appropriateness of their proposed article, as the CEJPP welcomes innovative ideas and approaches.

Review by Editor(s)

Prior to acceptance, all articles will undergo an initial screening by the journal’s editors. If accepted, potential articles are then reviewed anonymously by two or more peer readers. Likewise, commissioned articles and articles for special issues are evaluated by the journal's editors, a guest editor(s), and at least one additional reader. Papers that do not meet the formatting and content guidelines mentioned above will not be reviewed.

Forwarding Article to Reviewers

The article accepted by editor(s) shall be forwarded to two reviewers, selected by the Editor-in-chief on the proposal of appointed member(s) of the Editorial Board or author. The reviewers shall be experts in the given field and if possible, they should not be institutionally or personally associated with the author. The reviewers shall have three weeks to produce a review, and be notified about the expiry of this period. Unless they forward their assessments within two weeks following this period, a fresh reviewer shall be appointed. The review shall be provided by way of an editorial form.

Decisions about Accepting, Reworking or Rejection of an Article

The decision to accept, rework or reject an article shall be governed by the following rules*:

• If both reviews are favorable ("Accept"), the final decision on acceptation shall be taken by the Editor-in-chief after a conference with the Editorial Board.

• Likewise, if both reviews are unfavorable ("Decline"), the final decision on rejection shall be taken by the Editor-in-chief after a conference with the Editorial Board.

• If both reviews suggest minor revisions ("Revisions Required"), the author shall be invited to do so, and the revised text shall be forwarded to the Editorial Board.

• If both reviews suggest a "Resubmit for Review". The author shall be invited to revise the text and this is then forwarded to a fresh assessment either by the reviewer that raised relevant objections against the text, or by a third party.

• If one review is favorable and the other one unfavorable, the author shall be invited to revise the text, which is then forwarded to a third reviewer.

• If one review is favorable while the other recommends a review after revision, the author shall be invited to rework the text, and the article is then forwarded to the reviewer that requested that it be reworked. If minor revisions are requested, the text shall be forwarded to the Editorial Board without being previously assessed by the reviewer.

• If one review is unfavorable and the other requests minor or major revisions, the Editor-in-chief will suggests that the Editorial Board either reject the article or ask its author to make a revision, whereupon the revised text shall be forwarded to a third reviewer.

• If the reviewers fail to reach consensus even after reviewing a revised version of the article, the Editor-in-chief shall either contact a third reviewer (if such action was not taken earlier) or put the article forward to the Editorial Board for final decision about accepting or rejecting the article.

The Editor-in-chief and Editorial Board shall have one week after receiving the reviews to make their decision.

The author(s) shall receive a Report to the Author(s). If the author considers (all or some) recommendations by the reviewers materially groundless, he/she may present his/her position in a letter within a seven days' period, to be presented by the Editor-in-chief to the Editorial Board before the final decision is taken. The author shall be explicitly informed about this option. The Editor-in-chief shall make the final decision about the acceptance or rejection of the article after a conference with the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-chief shall immediately inform the author about this decision. The whole procedure should be completed within eight to twelve weeks from receiving the manuscript, depending on the number of reviews required. The Editorial Staff shall not be liable for any delays caused by reviewers.

 

* Policy may vary in singular, well-justified cases determined by the specific character of an article.

Publication Frequency

We publish articles collectively, i.e. as part of an issue with its own Table of Contents, twice a year.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

List of Reviewers