A total of 74 submissions were received in response to the Call for Papers for the MoPSA 2025 Conference. The Review Committee, composed of three members, conducted a selection of the submitted papers based on clearly defined criteria, described in detail below. After careful evaluation, 51 papers were selected to be presented as part of the conference program.
Given the crucial role of reviewers in ensuring high academic standards and the integrity of the selection process, every submission underwent a rigorous review process. In accordance with the call, each submission included an abstract (300–350 words), a set of keywords, and short author bios. The review team assessed each submission with respect to topic relevance, theoretical grounding, and methodological clarity.
During the selection process, reviewers were instructed to strictly adhere to the core principles of academic review, including the following key criteria:
- Confidentiality: All review processes were strictly confidential. The anonymity of both reviewers and authors was fully preserved. In cases where a reviewer knew or suspected the identity of the author(s) for any reason, they were instructed to report it so that the paper could be reassigned to an impartial reviewer.
- Objectivity: Reviewers were clearly instructed to evaluate papers objectively. Personal opinions not supported by scholarly argumentation were not considered valid grounds for rejecting a submission.
- Competence and Timeliness: Reviewers who felt unqualified to review a particular submission or were unable to meet the review deadline were instructed to notify the organizers and withdraw from the review process.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers were prohibited from reviewing manuscripts where a conflict of interest existed due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or associated entities.
Review Process Description
The review process was double-blind and involved the following steps:
Initial Screening:
The Conference Organizing Committee conducted a preliminary screening to ensure that all submissions aligned with the conference theme, adhered to submission guidelines, and were received on time through the electronic system.
Assignment:
Submissions that passed the initial screening were assigned to at least two field experts for detailed review.
Review:
Each reviewer evaluated the paper based on a set of predefined criteria (described below) and submitted a detailed review report with a recommendation for acceptance or rejection. Due to the large number of submissions, revision opportunities were not available.
Decision-making:
The Organizing Committee reviewed all feedback and made final decisions on paper acceptance. Authors of accepted papers were notified seven days before the stated deadline to confirm their participation. Papers that received conflicting reviews (e.g., one acceptance and one rejection) were placed on a waiting list, in case any accepted authors declined to participate.
Generally, the papers selected for the conference shared the following features:
- Relevance: The paper directly addressed topics related to democratic resilience and provided insights into various aspects of resisting democratic backsliding.
- Theoretical Grounding: Each accepted paper was embedded in a clearly articulated theoretical framework, offering a strong foundation for understanding findings and making an academic contribution to the field.
- Methodological Clarity: Methodologies were clearly described, appropriate for the study’s objectives, and reproducible.
Each submitted paper was evaluated using the following criteria, with a maximum score of 100 points:
- Relevance to the conference theme (0–30 points):
How well the paper aligns with the focus of the conference. - Originality and contribution (0–25 points):
Whether the paper offers new insights or significantly contributes to the existing body of academic knowledge. - Theoretical framework (0–20 points):
The presence of a clear and well-argued theoretical foundation. - Methodological elaboration (0–15 points):
Whether the methods used are appropriate and properly applied to the research question and hypotheses. - Clarity and quality of academic writing (0–10 points):
Whether the abstract is clearly written and logically structured.