---
name: govern-review-process
description: Use when you need to understand how Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions evaluates a manuscript — double-blind review by at least two referees, desk screening for scope (corporate governance and literature reviews are desk-rejected), the reject / R&R / accept decision categories, and how comparative-institutional reviewers judge. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
---

# Review Process (govern-review-process)

Knowing how *Governance* screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting.
*Governance* is **double-blind** and screens at the desk for **scope fit** before sending a paper to **at
least two referees**, who judge it as a contribution to comparative public policy, administration, and
the organization of the state — not as a single-country administrative report.

## When to trigger

- Before submitting, to stress-test against desk-rejection grounds (especially scope)
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what comparative-institutional referees are likely to weigh
- Deciding how much to invest after an R&R signal

## How Governance review works

1. **Double-blind.** Referees do not know the authors and authors do not know referees. Anonymize the
   manuscript and supply a **separate title page** (see `govern-submission`).
2. **Desk screening first (scope fit).** The editors screen for fit before external review. Two scope
   failures are reliably desk-rejected:
   - **Corporate governance** (firm boards, shareholders, corporate compliance) — hard out of scope.
   - **Literature reviews / state-of-the-field essays / pure bibliometric studies** — typically not
     published here.
   Also screened: is there a clear, original intervention that travels comparatively/institutionally, or
   is it a competent single-country description with no general contribution?
3. **External review by ≥ 2 referees.** Papers passing the desk go to **at least two** referees who
   review anonymously. (检索于 2026-06；以官网为准.)
4. **Decision categories**: **reject**, **revise and resubmit (R&R)**, or **accept**. As at peer venues,
   a first-round outright accept is rare; the realistic good outcome is an R&R.
5. **Editor's role.** The editors-in-chief (**Paolo Graziano and Adam Sheingate**, verified 2026-06-22;
   re-verify the masthead before submission) adjudicate the referee reports, weigh fit and contribution, and write the decision letter
   that sets the revision agenda.

## How comparative-institutional referees judge

A *Governance* referee tends to press on whether the claim really travels:

- **Case selection.** Why these countries/cases? Are they a defensible sample for the inference, or
  chosen on the outcome? (See `govern-research-design`.)
- **Generalizability across countries.** Does the mechanism hold beyond the studied cases, and are the
  scope conditions stated honestly?
- **Measurement of institutions.** Are bureaucratic autonomy, state capacity, accountability, or
  regime type measured in a way that is comparable across cases?
- **Alternative institutional explanations.** Are rival institutional/political accounts considered and
  ruled out, not just the favored one?
- **Contribution to understanding the state.** Does the paper change how we understand governing, or
  just add a data point?

## What an R&R signals

An R&R means the referees see a real comparative/institutional contribution worth saving. It is an
invitation, not an acceptance: the revision must satisfy the substantive concerns (usually case
selection, generalizability, measurement) and the response letter must convert each referee while keeping
the editor confident the revision is convergent (see `govern-rebuttal`).

## Checklist

- [ ] Manuscript anonymized for double-blind review; separate title page prepared
- [ ] Scope clears the desk: not corporate governance, not a literature review/bibliometric study
- [ ] A clear, original intervention that travels comparatively/institutionally is stated up front
- [ ] Case selection is defensible and not on the outcome
- [ ] Generalizability and scope conditions stated; rival institutional explanations addressed
- [ ] Institutional measures are comparable across cases
- [ ] Data Availability Statement ready (referees increasingly look for it; see `govern-transparency-and-data`)

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting a corporate-governance paper or a literature review (desk-rejected on scope)
- A competent single-country description with no comparative/institutional contribution
- Case selection on the dependent variable with no defense
- Ignoring obvious rival institutional explanations
- Expecting a first-round accept; the realistic good outcome is an R&R

## Output format

```
【Desk-scope check】not corporate gov / not lit-review-bibliometric? [Y/N]
【Comparative contribution】clear original intervention that travels? [Y/N]
【Referees】prepared for ≥ 2 anonymous comparative-institutional reviews? [Y/N]
【Likely pressure points】case selection / generalizability / measurement / rivals
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R / (rare) accept
【Next】govern-submission (or govern-rebuttal once a decision arrives)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — comparative-governance data and method aids referees expect
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — *Governance* peer-review policy, scope statement, editors