As a reviewer for the Administrative Reflections section, please focus your feedback on how the authors can strengthen their piece as a reflective narrative, rather than evaluating it by traditional academic standards.

Please evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

1. Authenticity and Practical Insight

• Does the reflection offer genuine insight into administrative or organizational experience?
• Are the reflections grounded in actual events, decisions, or reforms that matter to public administration or management?
• Does the manuscript illuminate what it felt like to manage or experience change from within?

 

2. Reflective Depth and Learning

• Does the author critically reflect on challenges, mistakes, trade-offs, or institutional tensions?
• Does the narrative show learning over time—not just what happened, but what was learned?
• Is there space for ambiguity or complexity rather than oversimplified success stories?

 

3. Contextual and Institutional Relevance

• Is the reflection situated clearly in a specific institutional, cultural, or policy context?
• Does it help the reader understand broader administrative dynamics through a focused perspective?
• Does it offer new insight from contexts often overlooked in dominant academic discourse (e.g., Global South, hybrid governance systems)?

 

4. Usefulness for Other Practitioners or Reformers

• Could a public administrator, policymaker, or leader learn or adapt something from this experience?
• Are there practical lessons or cautionary notes that others in similar roles might value?
• Does the author offer constructive recommendations, insights, or reflections that support better practice?

 

5. Clarity, Voice, and Accessibility

• Is the writing clear, engaging, and appropriate for scholars and practitioners?
• Does the piece avoid excessive jargon or overly formal academic tone?
• Is the author’s voice visible—in a way that invites trust and dialogue?

 

6. Additional Considerations

• Is the manuscript free of promotional tone and open about challenges?
• Are names, data, or institutional details handled ethically and respectfully?
• If the manuscript references literature, is it supportive rather than dominant?

 

Recommendation Options

Please select one:

• Accept with minor edits
• Minor revision (clarify, shorten, or polish)
• Major revision (requires narrative restructuring, clearer reflections, or stronger relevance)
• Reject (insufficient insight, unclear relevance, or weak reflection)