Nepal Public Policy Review

Connecting research to public policy

Reviewer Guidelines (January 2025)

Checklist for accepting the invitation to review a paper:

  • The Reviewer’s expertise aligns with the paper.
  • Commitment to adhere to the NPPR reviewer guidelines.
  • Has enough time to review the paper and its revisions.
  • There is no conflict of interest with the paper.

For the policy on the conflict of interest and other policies: See Journal Policies.

Three types of articles are accepted:

  • Research Articles: Manuscripts presenting original research based on primary data collection and/or novel analysis of existing secondary data.
  • Review Articles: Comprehensive syntheses and critical evaluations of existing research literature on specific policy-relevant topics.
  • Policy Commentaries: Expert perspectives supported by empirical evidence, offering critical reflections and policy recommendations.

For more information: See Aims and Scope and Author Guidelines

Determining criteria for recommending a paper for publication in the NPPR:

  • Sufficient and reliable data
  • Well-connected to public policy
  • Orderly and intelligible presentation

Other criteria:

  • Title – should be concise and be able to give an idea about the major finding.
  • Abstract - should briefly introduce the context, objective, and research findings in fewer than 250 words. It should also be presented in both English and Nepali. 
  • Introduction – should clearly and specifically explain the research and policy context that leads to the study's objective. 
  • Knowledge Gaps and/or Policy Gaps should be convincingly identified through an honest and thorough literature review and a quick policy survey to justify the study.
  • Research Methodology – should outline methods for gathering data from all relevant sources. It is crucial to recognize that policy research (research that informs policy) fundamentally requires data collected from a variety of sources, including the target population, experts, academic literature, grey literature, and media. Consider the quantity, quality, and diversity of data sources.
  • Result – should be clearly presented, starting with the most important result, followed by other findings from the analysis of primary and secondary data collected. Each result should end with a statement highlighting its main feature for later compilation in the Conclusions.
  • Discussion – this section, either combined with the Results section or as a separate one, places the findings in a broader context by comparing them with other studies and highlighting their significance, especially for policy. 
  • Conclusions should be presented as a well-organized compilation of individual findings from each result. It should also highlight any remaining relevant knowledge gaps. Overall, this section provides an evidence base for the Policy Recommendation. 
  • Policy recommendation should be made judiciously based solely on the conclusions from the previous section. No new issues should be introduced here.
  • Suggested Course of Action - practical recommendations for implementing the recommendations. It should be as objective as possible and ideally developed through collaboration between researchers and policy makers or via extensive consultations. 
  • References should include ethically chosen and highly relevant sources. The style must follow the APA 7th Edition and the Policy Research Institute Style Guide 2nd Edition, 2081.

Submitting review report:

  • You will get an invitation from the NPPR Secretariat to review a manuscript.
  • You affirm your willingness and commitment to review promptly.
  • Within an agreed-upon time, you submit the following review reports.
  1. Your full comments on the manuscript itself using track changes.
  2. A review report including review narratives, ratings, comments, and suggestions completed in the NPPR Review Report form (which has four parts).

NPPR Review Report form

Manuscript ID: …………………….

Title of The Manuscript: …………………………………………………………………….

Part-1

Reviewer’s comments and suggestions

(i) Title (Is it concise and clear? Does it reflect the main finding of the study?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(ii) Abstract (Does it clearly present the context, objective, and findings of the study within 250 words?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(iii) Introduction (Does it sufficiently and specifically explain the research and policy context of the study and lead smoothly to the study's objective?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(iv) Knowledge and/or policy gaps (Have these been identified convincingly with an honest and good literature review and a quick policy survey as justification of the study?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

 (v) Methodology (Is it designed to collect sufficiently representative data? Does it cover all sources of data that are relevant to the study? Is the methodology explained clearly and sufficiently?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(vi) Results (Are the results reliable? Are they presented in an organized and clear manner? Has the author included a concluding statement that highlights the main features of each result?) Note: Results and Discussion can be combined into one section.

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(vii)   Discussion (Has the author identified the significance of the results and findings by comparing them with relevant studies and their relevance to specific policies?). Note: Results and Discussion can be presented together.

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(viii)   Conclusions (This section summarizes the major findings of the study and provides an evidence base for policy recommendations in the next section. It should be presented as a structured synthesis of the conclusions drawn from individual result subsections and elaborated in the Discussion. It should also note any remaining knowledge gaps that are unresolved. Please evaluate the manuscript based on these requirements.)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(ix) Policy recommendations (Are these accurately and completely derived from the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion of the study? Are there any issues that were never addressed earlier in the paper? Are the recommendations clear and convincing for policymakers?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(x) Suggested Course of Action (Are these consistent with the Policy Recommendations? Have the suggestions identified WHO, HOW, and WHEN for the action? Are these derived from consultation with or validated by policy actors? Are these convincing?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

 (xi) References (Are these consistent with the Policy Recommendations? Do they identify WHO, HOW, and WHEN for the actions? Are they based on consultation with or validated by policy actors? Are they convincing?)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

(xii) Any other issue (Please write your comments and suggestion for any other issues)

Comments:

 

Suggestions:

 

 Part-2

Your rating for individual sections

 

Section

Rating (indicate with X)

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

i.

Title

 

 

 

 

ii.

Abstract

 

 

 

 

iii.

Introduction

 

 

 

 

iv.

Knowledge gaps/Policy gaps

 

 

 

 

v.

Methodology

 

 

 

 

vi.

Results and discussion

 

 

 

 

vii.

Conclusions

 

 

 

 

viii.

Policy recommendations

 

 

 

 

ix.

Suggestion course of action

 

 

 

 

x.

References

 

 

 

 

xi.

Other (if any)

 

 

 

 

 Part-3

Review Summary

(to be shared with the author)

Please write a summary of your review that we can share with the author. For the things that you do not want to be shared with the author, please use Part-4 of this form.)

Review summary (for author):

 

 Part-4

Comments to the Editor

(this will not be shared with the author)

Comments to the Editor:

Your recommendation to the Editor (indicate with X)
a. Accept the paper for publication
b. Requires minor revision
c. Requires major revision
d. Reject

Declaration:

I have reviewed the paper to the best of my judgment according to the NPPR Reviewer Guidelines, and I declare that I have no financial or non-financial competing interests.

Reviewer’s name (will be kept confidential): ………………………………

Date: ……………………….