Our Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Ugandan Journal of Management and Public Policy Studies undergo a comprehensive peer-review process to maintain high standards of quality, reliability and credibility. The journal uses a double-blind review system in which both authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain confidential throughout the process.

Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally sent for peer review by qualified experts in the relevant field. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, relevance, theoretical contribution, methodological quality, literature engagement, ethical compliance, clarity, interpretation of findings, and contribution to knowledge, policy, and practice. The peer review process normally takes 8 to 12 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional expert assessment.  Possible editorial decisions include:
i) Accept;
ii) Accept with minor revisions;
iii) Major revisions required;
iv) Revise and resubmit;
v) Reject.
The Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor makes the final editorial decision based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and the manuscript’s contribution to the journal.

Revision and Response to Reviewers
When revisions are requested, authors must carefully address all comments from reviewers and editors. Revision is an important part of the scholarly publishing process and does not guarantee acceptance. Authors should note that reviewer and editor feedback may require more than one round of revision. A manuscript may be returned to authors several times until all substantive, methodological, ethical, analytical, formatting, or presentation issues have been adequately addressed.
When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must upload the following documents through the journal submission platform:
a) Clean revised manuscript: This version should incorporate all approved revisions without visible tracked changes.
b) Tracked-changes manuscript: This version should clearly show all changes made in response to reviewer and editor comments.
c)  Detailed response to reviewers and editors: This document should provide a point-by-point response to every comment raised by reviewers and editors. Authors should indicate exactly how and where each comment has been addressed in the revised manuscript. Where authors disagree with a comment, they should provide a respectful, scholarly, and evidence-based explanation.
The response document should be organized clearly, preferably using a table with the following columns:
a) Reviewer/editor comment;
b) Author response;
c) Action taken;
d) Page, paragraph, or section where the change was made.

Timeline for Submitting Revisions
Authors are expected to submit their revised manuscript and a response to reviewer comments within four weeks of receiving the editorial decision.If authors need more time, they must request an extension from the editorial office before the deadline. Extension requests should briefly explain the reason for the delay and state the expected submission date.If a revised manuscript and response to reviewers are submitted more than 60 days after the initial submission without an approved extension, the manuscript may be treated as a new submission.
In such cases, the manuscript may undergo a new editorial screening and peer review process.

Requirements for a Good Response to Reviewers
Authors should ensure that their responses to reviewers are complete, respectful, clear, and evidence-based. A good response should:
a) Address every reviewer and editor comment individually;
b) Avoid general statements such as “corrected” without explanation;
c) Clearly indicate where changes were made in the manuscript;
d) Provide justification where no change was made;
e) Maintain a professional and respectful tone;
f) Ensure consistency between the clean version, tracked-changes version, and response document;
g) Correct all related sections affected by a reviewer’s comment;
h) Check that revised tables, figures, references, citations, and appendices are accurate and complete.
Incomplete responses, missing tracked changes, failure to submit a clean version, or failure to address major comments may delay the review process or lead to rejection.

Further Review After Revision
After the revised manuscript is submitted, the editor will assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewer and editorial comments. Depending on the nature of the revisions, the manuscript may be:
a) Assessed by the handling editor;
b) Returned to the original reviewers;
c) Sent to additional reviewers;
d) Returned to authors for further revision;
e) Accepted;
f) Rejected.
Authors should understand that multiple rounds of review may be necessary, especially when methodological, theoretical, ethical, analytical, or presentation issues remain unresolved.

Acceptance
A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the editor is satisfied that it meets the journal’s scholarly, ethical, methodological, and editorial standards. Acceptance may also depend on the successful completion of all required declarations, permissions, revisions, formatting corrections, and publication checks.The acceptance decision will be communicated to the corresponding author in writing.

Key Components of the Review Process
Quality Assessment: Reviewers with relevant expertise evaluate the manuscript’s quality, significance and academic rigor.
Confidentiality: All aspects of the review remain confidential.
Constructive Input: Reviewers provide practical suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the allocated period.