OASPA

Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

Subscribe to OASPA News

* = required field
Subscribe

Member Record: Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration, IRPA

Title Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration, IRPA
Class Scholar Publisher
URL http://www.irpa.is
Owner The Institute of Public Administration and Politics, University of Iceland: http://www.stjornsyslustofnun.hi.is
Address Gimli v. Sæmundargötu
101 Reykjavík
Iceland
Copyright link http://www.irpa.is/about/submissions#CopyrightNotice
Copyright policy Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Complaint email ghk@hi.is; astam@hi.is
Complaint policy Complaints are dealt with by the editor of the journal. 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. See: http://www.irpa.is/about/editorialPolicies#custom-3#PublicationEthics
Publication charge link http://www.irpa.is/greinasnidmat/Guidelinesforauthors2013.pdf
Publication charge policy There are no author’s fees.
OA journals 1
OA articles Approximately 30 pr. year
Initiatives Not applicable
Peer review policy http://www.irpa.is/greinasnidmat/Guidelinesforauthors2013.pdf
The journal is peer reviewed, that is double blind; where the reviewer does not receive information on authors and authors do not receive information on reviewers. There are four possible outcomes of peer-review: (1) the article is accepted; (2) the article is accepted subject to certain changes (a statement listing the changes that were made must accompany the next draft); (3) major changes must be made to the article, however, the author may submit a new article for peer-review (same reviewers); (4) the article is rejected. Should the reviewers not agree on the results, the editors either rule on the problem or a third reviewer is called in and his/her opinion dictates the result.