Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration (IRPA) publishes original research on Icelandic politics and policy related subjects. Articles with a broader political science relevance may also be considered, especially articles of a sufficiently high standard with a comparative focus or containing theoretical and methodological innovations. The journal is open to submission from political scientists and researchers in related fields dealing with politics, public administration and policy relevant issues.

Journal articles are published in English or Icelandic. Articles in Icelandic are accompanied with abstracts and bibliographic information in English.

 

Section Policies

Peer Reviewed Articles

The journal uses double-blind system for peer-review; both reviewers and authors’ identities remain anonymous. 

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration, IRPA (Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla ) is a peer reviewed journal that is double blind; where the reviewer does not receive information on authors and authors do not receive information on reviewers

 

Publication Frequency

The first issue of a volume is published on the web in June every year and the second issue in December the same year. Announcements will be made for every issue. 

 

Open Access Policy

The IRPA is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the DOAJ definition of open access.

 

Publication ethics

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

(Adopted from Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines)

Our journal publishes peer-reviewed articles. We uphold the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractices. It is important to agree upon standards of proper ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the editors, the peer-reviewers and the publisher.

Duties of Authors

(Adopted from Elsevier and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)


Reporting of standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.


Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.


Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.


Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.


Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.


Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.


Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.


Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.


Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Duties of Editors

(Adopted from COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Publishing Ethics – Elsevier)


Publication decisions

The editor of a Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.


Fair play

The editor of Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff of Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.


Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.


Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editor of Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of Reviewers

(Adopted from COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Publishing Ethics – Elsevier)


Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor of Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.


Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.


Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


Acknowledgement of Source

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.


Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, Chief Editor of Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla – Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration