We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Find out more Skip to Main Content

Journal Policies

Scope of the Journal
Publication ethics
Peer review process
Responses
Self-archiving policy
Material disclaimer

SCOPE OF THE JOURNAL

Science and Public Policy is a leading international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation. It covers all types of science and technology in both developed and developing countries.

Return to top of page.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Authors should observe high standards with respect to publication ethics as set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). Falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, including duplicate publication of the authors’ own work without proper citation, and misappropriation of the work are all unacceptable practices. Any cases of ethical misconduct are treated very seriously and will be dealt with in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

Authorship

All authors should have been involved in the writing of the manuscript at draft and any revision stages, and have read and approved the final version. Anyone who made major contributions to the writing of the manuscript should be listed as an author (e.g. “ghost writing” is prohibited by the Journal). Any other individuals who made less substantive contributions to the study or the writing of the manuscript should be listed in the acknowledgement section. Any change in authorship (including author order) after the initial manuscript submission must be approved in writing by all authors.

Authorship and 'Umbrella' groups

Many large collaborative studies are organized under a group name which represents all the participants. All articles must have at least one named individual as author. Authors who wish to acknowledge the umbrella group from which the data originate should first list the author(s) of the article and follow this with 'on behalf of the GROUP NAME'. If necessary the names of the participants may be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Originality

By submitting your manuscript to the journal it is understood that this it is an original manuscript and is unpublished work and is not under consideration elsewhere. Plagiarism, including duplicate publication of the author’s own work, in whole or in part without proper citation is not tolerated by the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the journal may be checked for originality using anti-plagiarism software.

Conflicts of interest

At the point of submission, each author should reveal any financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated – including pertinent commercial or other sources of funding for the individual author(s) or for the associated department(s) or organization(s), personal relationships, or direct academic competition. When considering whether you should declare a conflicting interest or connection please consider the conflict of interest test: Is there any arrangement that would embarrass you or any of your co-authors if it was to emerge after publication and you had not declared it?

Return to top of page.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All submissions to the journal are initially reviewed by one of the Editors. At this stage manuscripts may be rejected without peer review if it is felt that they are not of high enough priority or not relevant to the journal. This fast rejection process means that authors are given a quick decision and do not need to wait for the review process.

Manuscripts that are not instantly rejected are sent out for peer review, usually to two independent reviewers. Based on the feedback from these reviewers and the Editors’ judgment a decision is given on the manuscript. The average time from submission to first decision is 8 weeks.

Referees review the papers using the following criteria:

  • Is the paper technically competent? Are the arguments, facts, logic, sources, all reasonable? Can you understand it all?
  • Is it interesting, stimulating and of general interest to the Science and Public Policy community (broadly defined)?
  • Any unfortunate gaps?
  • If it claims originality, is that claim plausible?
  • Are all the tables and illustrations helpful?

If this paper is not acceptable in its present form, we will pass on suggestions for revisions to the author.

Return to top of page.

RESPONSES

SPP publishes responses to previously-published SPP articles, subject to the normal review process. Where a response is published, the author of the original SPP article will be offered the opportunity to respond to the first response. This discussion will then be considered completed, with no further responses permitted from either author. All responses should be written in a polite and respectful tone, and OUP reserves the right to edit or refuse to publish any response that it deems do not meet this requirement.

Return to top of page.

SELF-ARCHIVING POLICY

For information about this journal's policy, please visit our Author Self-Archiving policy page.

Return to top of page.

MATERIAL DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in Science and Public Policy are those of the authors and contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, the editorial board, Oxford University Press or the organization to which the authors are affiliated.

Return to top of page.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Subscribe Now