1. Focus and Scope
The Central European Journal of Public Policy (CEJPP) is an open-access, multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing analytical, theoretical, and methodological research in the field of public policy. The journal’s mission is to provide scholars and professionals across diverse policy domains with state-of-the-art theoretical and methodological insights grounded in robust empirical analysis.
CEJPP welcomes contributions covering the full spectrum of public policy topics, including but not limited to social services and healthcare, environmental policy, education, labour markets, migration, security, public finance and budgeting, administrative reform, performance measurement, and governance. The journal seeks to maintain a balanced interplay between the description, explanation, and evaluation of public policies and promotes the use of diverse social-science methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative.
Although the journal primarily concentrates on Central Europe, relevant contributions from other geographical regions are encouraged in order to enrich the understanding and development of public policy scholarship within Central Europe.
2. Criteria for Publication
The CEJPP accepts original manuscripts with sound theoretical, methodological and empirical grounding. For „standard“ articles „IMRAD“ rules should be respected, research questions or hypotheses stated and responded. The CEJPP publishes papers within the broad field of public policy including recent developments in research, scholarship and practice within public policy, public administration, government, public management, administrative law and public policy theory. For any specific submission the authors are welcome to email an abstract to the Editor-in-Chief, prior to formal submission, if they wish for guidance on the appropriateness of their proposed article, as the CEJPP welcomes innovative ideas and approaches. We will not review manuscripts that are currently under review for publication or that have been printed in another journal.
2.1. Section Policies
| Section | Open Submission | Indexed | Peer Reviewed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Articles | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Student Work | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Discussion | Yes | Yes | No |
| Editorial | No | Yes | No |
2.2. Authorship
All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. Those who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria can be mentioned in the Acknowledgments. The principal author must be prepared to sign the license agreement on behalf of all the authors.
2.3. Plagiarism
The CEJPP takes issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication seriously. Plagiarism is not acceptable and plagiarized content will not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is identified, we will follow the COPE plagiarism guidelines. The CEJPP uses CrossCheck to screen submitted content for originality, and a follow-up investigation is done if the software raises any concerns. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may issue a correction or retract the paper, as appropriate. We reserve the right to inform authors’ institutions about plagiarism detected either before or after publication.
3. Peer Review Process
Peer review is central to CEJPP’s publication practices. All submitted manuscripts first undergo editorial evaluation and, if deemed suitable, are then forwarded anonymously for external peer review.
3.1. Review by the Editor(s)
Prior to being sent for external review, all submissions are subject to an initial screening conducted by the journal’s editors. This internal evaluation verifies compliance with the journal’s formal requirements, assesses the suitability of the manuscript’s scope and content, checks for potential conflicts of interest, and ensures overall readiness for review.
During this phase, authors may be asked to address queries or provide clarifications. Manuscripts will not be forwarded to the Editorial Board or external reviewers until they successfully pass this quality control stage.
Following the initial screening, eligible submissions are anonymized and reviewed by at least two independent peer reviewers. Commissioned articles and contributions to special issues undergo a similar process, involving the journal’s editors, guest editors, and at least two additional reviewers.
3.2. Forwarding Articles to Reviewers
Manuscripts approved by the editor(s) for peer review are assigned to a minimum of two reviewers, selected by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with designated members of the Editorial Board. Reviewers must be experts in the relevant field and, whenever possible, should have no institutional or personal connections to the author.
Reviewers are given four weeks to complete their assessments and receive a reminder upon the expiration of this period. If a reviewer does not submit their evaluation within two additional weeks, a new reviewer may be appointed. All reviews must be submitted using the journal’s official review form.
3.3. Decisions on Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection
Editorial decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts follow the guidelines below:
(Note: Exceptions may be made in well-justified cases based on the specific nature of the submission.)
- Both reviews recommend acceptance (“Accept”)
→ The Editor-in-Chief, following consultation with the Editorial Board, makes the final decision to accept the manuscript. - Both reviews recommend rejection (“Decline”)
→ The Editor-in-Chief, after consulting the Editorial Board, makes the final decision to reject the manuscript. - Both reviews recommend minor revisions (“Revisions Required”)
→ The author is invited to revise the manuscript accordingly. The revised version undergoes further evaluation by the Editorial Board. - Both reviews recommend major revisions (“Resubmit for Review”)
→ The author is invited to revise the manuscript, which is subsequently reassessed either by the reviewer who raised major concerns or by a third reviewer. - If one review is favourable and the other unfavourable, the author will be invited to revise the manuscript. The revised version will then be forwarded to a third reviewer.
- If one review is favourable while the other recommends revisions prior to acceptance, the author will be invited to revise the manuscript. The revised version will be sent to the reviewer who requested the revisions. In cases where only minor revisions have been requested, the revised manuscript will proceed directly to the Editorial Board without additional reviewer assessment.
- If one review is unfavourable and the other recommends minor or major revisions, the Editor-in-Chief will consult with the Editorial Board to decide whether the manuscript should be rejected or whether the author should be invited to revise it. If revision is allowed, the revised manuscript will be forwarded to a third reviewer.
- If the reviewers are unable to reach a consensus even after evaluating a revised manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will either appoint a third reviewer (if one has not already been engaged) or present the manuscript to the Editorial Board for a final decision on acceptance or rejection.
The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board have one week from the receipt of reviewer reports to reach a decision.
Authors will receive a Report to the Author(s). If the author(s) consider any reviewer recommendations to be substantively unfounded, they may submit a written response (via letter or e-mail) within seven days. This response will be presented by the Editor-in-Chief to the Editorial Board prior to the final decision. Authors will be explicitly informed of this option. After consultation with the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection and notify the author promptly.
The entire review and decision-making process should normally be completed within nine to thirteen weeks from the manuscript’s receipt, depending on the number of review rounds required. The Editorial Staff is not responsible for delays caused by reviewers.
4. Publication Frequency
CEJPP publishes articles on a rolling basis as soon as they are ready and appear on the journal’s website. Two issues are compiled and formally published each year.
5. Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content based on the principle that freely available research enhances the global exchange of knowledge. An open-access fee of 400 EUR is charged for accepted manuscripts.
6. Copyright Policy
CEJPP applies the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license to all published works. This license facilitates open access by allowing immediate, free use of original works. Under the terms of the license, anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse published material, provided that proper attribution is given to the author and the original source, and that the material is not altered or used for commercial purposes.
7. Privacy Statement
The names and email addresses entered in the CEJPP online submission system are used solely for the journal’s operational purposes. This information will not be shared with or distributed to any third party for any other purpose.
8. Journal Archiving
The journal’s content is preserved through the Portico e-journal archiving service and is additionally archived within the digital repository of the National Library of the Czech Republic (Webarchiv).
9. Corrections and Retractions
The editors of CEJPP hold sole and independent responsibility for determining which submitted manuscripts will be published. Their decisions are based on the journal’s policies and must comply with legal requirements concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
Published articles are expected to remain permanently accessible, accurate, and unaltered to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, in rare circumstances, a published article may require correction through the issuance of an erratum or corrigendum, or may need to be retracted or removed entirely. In all such cases, CEJPP adheres to the COPE guidelines on corrections and retractions.