Nepal Public Policy Review
Connecting research to public policy

A peer-reviewed journal promoted by the Policy Research Institute

Reviewer Guidelines

Checklist for accepting the invitation to review a paper:

  • Reviewer’s area of expertise matches with the paper.
  • Commitment to follow the NPPR guidelines for reviewers.
  • Has sufficient time for reviewing the paper and its revisions.
  • No conflict of interest with the paper.

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

Two types of articles are accepted:

  • Research articles - These are articles with significant primary data generated by authors.
  • Review articles - These are articles based entirely on the analysis of secondary data generated by others and compiled by the authors.

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 idea about the major finding.
  • Abstract - should be a brief introduction to the context, objective, and findings of the research in fewer than 250 words. Also, should be presented in English as well as Nepali.
  • Introduction – should sufficiently and specifically explain the research and policy context of the study leading to the objective of the study.
  • Knowledge gaps – should be convincingly identified with an honest and good literature review. This is a must for the research article category.
  • Policy gaps – should be convincingly identified with appropriate literature review including grey literature and media review. A must for research article as well as review article.
  • Research Methodology – should well describe methods for collecting data from all relevant sources. It is important to understand that policy research (research that brings research to policy) essentially requires data collected from diverse sources including target population, experts, academic literature, grey literature, and media. Look for amount, quality, and multiple sources of data.
  • Result – should be well-presented starting from the most important result followed by other results derived from the analysis of the primary and secondary data collected. Each result should be concluded with a statement about the major feature of the result.
  • Discussion – this section, combined with the Result section or a separate one, puts the result in a broader context, comparing it with other studies and determining the significance of the results, particularly for policy.
  • Conclusion – should be presented as a well-organized compilation of individual conclusions derived from each result. It should also identify persisting relevant knowledge gaps. Altogether, this section provides an evidence base for the Policy Recommendation.
  • Policy Recommendation – should be judicious based entirely on the conclusions from the previous section. No entry for new issues here.
  • Suggested Course of Action - practical suggestions for the implementation of the recommendations. It should be as objective as possible. Best generated through a collaboration of researchers and policy actors or extensive consultations.
  • References – should reflect ethically selected highly relevant references. Style should follow the APA 7th Edition or the Policy Research Institute Style Guide 2081.

 

How to prepare and submit the review report:

  • You will receive an invitation from the Secretariat of NPPR to review a manuscript.
  • You confirm your willingness and commitment to timely review.
  • Within an agreed-upon time, you submit the following review reports.
  1. Your full comments on the manuscript itself on the track change mode
  2. A review report with review narratives, ratings, comments, and suggestions filled in the NPPR Review Report form (It has 4 parts).

NPPR Review Report form

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

Part-1

Reviewer’s comments and suggestions

(i) Title (Is it concise and precise? Does it give idea about the major finding of the study?)

Comments:

Suggestions:

(ii) Abstract (Does it present the context, objective, and findings of the study precisely and is 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 objective of the study?)

Comments:

Suggestions:

(iv) Knowledge gaps (Have the knowledge gaps been identified convincingly with an honest and good literature review? Note: This section is mandatory for research article. Review article may or may not have this section.

Comments:

Suggestions:

(v) Policy gaps (Does it identify defective or missing policies? Does it use reliable sources to identify them?)

Comments:

Suggestions:

(vi) 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:

(vii)   Results (Are the results presented reliable? Are they presented orderly and clearly? Has the author made a concluding statement highlighting major feature of each result?) Note: Results and Discussion can be presented together.

Comments:

Suggestions:

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

Comments:

Suggestions:

 (ix) Policy recommendations (Are these generated precisely from the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion of the study? Are there any issues never discussed in the paper before? Are the recommendations intelligible and convincing for policymakers?)

Comments:

Suggestions:

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

Comments:

Suggestions:

(xi) References (Are these ethically selected and sufficiently relevant? Too little or too many? Does it accurately follow the APA 7th Edition or the PRI Style Guidelines 2081 for style?)

Comments:

Suggestions:

(xii) Any other issue (Please write your comments and suggestions 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

 

 

 

 

v.

Policy gaps

 

 

 

 

vi.

Methodology

 

 

 

 

vii.

Results and discussion

 

 

 

 

viii.

Conclusion

 

 

 

 

ix.

Policy recommendations

 

 

 

 

x.

Suggestion course of action

 

 

 

 

xi.

References

 

 

 

 

xii.

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)
  1. Accept the paper for publication
  2. Requires minor revision
  3. Requires major revision
  4. Reject

Declaration:

I have reviewed the paper to the best of my judgment following the NPPR Reviewer Guidelines and I declare that I do not have any financial or non-financial competing interest with the paper I have reviewed.

 

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

Date: ……………………….