Editorial and ethical rules

The Editorial Board of the Journal of Development Studies (JDS) upholds the core values of Sulkhan‑Saba Orbeliani University and operates in accordance with the principles of research freedom, freedom of expression and publication, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

Peer Review Process

All research articles published in JDS undergo double‑blind peer review, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The process is designed to ensure scholarly quality, originality, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

Submission and Initial Editorial Check

  • Manuscripts are submitted by email to [submission email] with the required cover information.
  • On receipt, the editorial office assigns a manuscript ID and sends an acknowledgment to the corresponding author.
  • The Editor‑in‑Chief or a designated handling editor conducts an initial check to confirm that the manuscript:
    • Fits the journal’s aims and scope
    • Meets basic quality and formatting requirements
    • Is written in acceptable academic English
    • Shows no obvious signs of plagiarism or ethical issues

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk‑rejected without external review.

Invitation of Reviewers

If the manuscript passes the initial check, the handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications (typically a PhD or equivalent research experience)
  • Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript’s topic (e.g., publications, research activity)
  • Absence of conflicts of interest (no recent co‑authorship, institutional, or personal relationship with the authors)
  • A balance of national and international expertise where possible

Reviewers are contacted by email and asked to confirm their availability within 5–7 days. If a reviewer declines or does not respond, alternative reviewers are invited.

Review Period and Reports

  • Reviewers are given 3–4 weeks to submit their reports.
  • Reminders are sent if reports are overdue.
  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on criteria including:
    • Originality and contribution to knowledge
    • Conceptual and theoretical soundness
    • Methodological rigour and appropriateness
    • Clarity of argument, structure, and language
    • Quality and relevance of references
    • Ethical compliance (e.g., data, consent, conflicts of interest)

Reviewers provide a recommendation (accept; accept with minor revisions; accept with major revisions; reject) and detailed comments for the authors and editor.

Editorial Decision

The handling editor considers all reviewer reports and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept with minor revisions – changes are checked by the editor; no re‑review is required.
  • Accept with major revisions – authors must substantially revise; the revised manuscript is usually sent back to at least one original reviewer.
  • Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in JDS.

In cases where reviewer recommendations conflict (e.g., one positive and one negative), the editor may invite a third reviewer before making a final decision.

Authors receive a decision letter summarizing the outcome and including anonymized reviewer comments.

Revision and Re‑review

  • Authors are typically given 4–6 weeks to submit a revised manuscript, depending on the extent of revisions.
  • The revised submission must include a point‑by‑point response to all reviewer and editor comments.
  • Revisions classified as “major” are normally re‑reviewed; “minor” revisions are checked by the editor.

Final Acceptance and Publication

Once the manuscript is accepted:

  • It undergoes copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.
  • Authors review the final proof and approve any remaining changes.

The article is published online with a DOI and added to the current or forthcoming issue.

Typical Timeline

  • Initial editorial check: within 1 week of submission
  • Reviewer invitation and confirmation: 1–2 weeks
  • Review period: 3–4 weeks per round
  • Average time from submission to first decision: 6–8 weeks

Overall, the average duration from submission to final decision is approximately two months, though this may vary depending on reviewer availability and the need for multiple revision rounds.

 

Confidentiality and Ethics

All participants (editors, reviewers, authors) are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process.

  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline to review when a conflict exists.
  • The journal follows COPE guidelines on publication ethics, including handling of plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes, corrections, and retractions.

 

Editor Responsibilities

The Editor, in consultation with the Editorial Board, is responsible for:

  • Determining the journal’s goals, objectives, and publishing policy
  • Ensuring the scientific quality of published content and its continuous improvement
  • Verifying that all submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening using anti‑plagiarism software
  • Assigning manuscripts that pass initial screening to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise for double‑blind peer review
  • Rejecting manuscripts immediately if plagiarism is detected and notifying authors with documented evidence
  • Communicating review outcomes (acceptance, revision, or rejection) to authors via email within a reasonable timeframe, including anonymized reviewer comments and recommendations
  • Ensuring the high quality, objectivity, and integrity of the peer review process
  • Selecting reviewers based on their qualifications, expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest
  • Addressing reasonable concerns about reviewer bias by consulting with the Editorial Board and, when appropriate, assigning alternative reviewers or seeking third‑party review
  • Publishing corrections, clarifications, or retractions when editorial misconduct or errors are identified
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of all materials under review

 

Conflicts of Interest

The journal recognizes the following as potential conflicts of interest: personal relationships, professional rivalries, academic competition, financial interests, and strongly held intellectual positions.

Editorial Board members must:

  • Evaluate all submissions objectively and impartially, without favoritism
  • Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist

Reviewers must:

  • Disclose any conflicts of interest to the Editor immediately upon assignment
  • Decline to review manuscripts when conflicts cannot be managed appropriately

 

Raising Concerns

Any individual who identifies errors, ethical violations, or deviations from stated editorial policy should contact the journal’s editorial office at ids@sabauni.edu.ge.

The Editorial Board commits to:

  • Investigating all concerns promptly and thoroughly
  • Taking appropriate corrective action in accordance with COPE guidelines
  • Maintaining transparency throughout the investigation process

 

Post‑Publication Corrections and Retractions

Corrections

  • Authors may not significantly alter an article’s content or findings after publication.
  • Minor technical corrections (e.g., typographical errors, formatting issues) may be published as corrigenda in a subsequent issue, clearly linked to the original article.

Retractions

The Editor may retract published articles in cases of:

  • Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism)
  • Duplicate publication
  • Ethical violations in research conduct
  • Unreliable findings that cannot be verified
  • Failure to disclose major conflicts of interest

Retraction notices will remain permanently linked to the retracted article and will clearly state the reason for retraction.

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

To ensure transparency and maintain academic integrity, the journal has established the following AI policies.

AI as Author

  • The journal does not accept manuscripts listing artificial intelligence tools or systems as authors or co‑authors. Authorship requires accountability, and AI systems cannot take responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, or originality of scholarly work.

AI as Bibliographic Source

  • The journal does not accept manuscripts citing AI programs (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude) as bibliographic sources. Such content may lack reliability, verifiability, or appropriate attribution.

AI as a Writing and Research Assistance Tool

The journal accepts the use of AI tools for supportive purposes, including:

  • Grammar and language editing
  • Translation assistance
  • Feedback on structure and style
  • Data analysis and visualization
  • Programming support

Disclosure requirement:
Authors who use AI tools must include a disclosure statement after the References section under the heading:

“Declaration on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies”

Example statement:

“During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [AI tool name] for [specific purpose]. The author(s) reviewed and revised all AI‑generated content and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.”

 

AI Use in Peer Review

  • The journal strictly prohibits the use of AI tools in the peer review process. Peer review is a scholarly activity requiring personal expertise, critical judgment, and ethical responsibility. Reviewers must rely solely on their professional knowledge and experience when evaluating manuscripts.