Editorial and Peer Review Policy

Social Sciences Journal (SSJ)  |  e-ISSN 3047-7646

1. Scope of Peer Review

Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Conceptual Papers, and Case Studies are subject to editorial screening and external peer review before acceptance. Editorial materials, announcements, corrections, retraction notices, and other non-research content may be assessed internally rather than externally reviewed; any exception to the standard peer-review process will be identified transparently in the published item.

Submission does not guarantee external review, acceptance, or publication. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished, not under consideration by another journal, and relevant to the journal's stated scope.

2. Editorial and Peer-Review Workflow

3. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers should be active scholars or professionals with demonstrable expertise relevant to the manuscript. Expertise may be evidenced by an appropriate academic qualification, peer-reviewed publications, methodological competence, professional experience, or another recognized scholarly contribution. Reviewers should normally be independent of the authors and should not be selected solely from the journal's editorial team.

• The editor verifies reviewer suitability and institutional affiliation before assignment.
• A third reviewer may be appointed when reports materially conflict, specialist expertise is required, or the editor needs additional independent advice.
• When authors are invited to suggest reviewers, the journal is not obliged to use the suggestions. Authors must disclose relevant relationships and must not provide false identities, fabricated accounts, or personal email addresses presented as independent institutional contacts.
• Reviewers may not delegate a review to another person without prior written authorization from the editor. Any authorized co-reviewer must be named to the editor and must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, personal, academic, professional, competitive, collaborative, political, religious, or institutional relationship that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—their judgment. A reviewer should decline an invitation when impartiality may be compromised. Editors with a conflict must recuse themselves, and the manuscript must be handled by an independent editor.

Submissions authored by an editor, editorial board member, or person closely associated with the journal are subject to the same requirements and independent external review. The submitting editor or board member must have no role in reviewer selection, access to confidential review identities, or the decision on their manuscript.

5. Confidentiality and Data Protection

• Submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished findings are confidential materials.
• Reviewers must not share, quote, copy, retain, distribute, or use manuscript content for personal, academic, financial, or competitive advantage.
• Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the manuscript. All communications must take place through the journal's editorial system or editorial office.
• Editors and editorial staff may disclose information only to persons legitimately involved in manuscript assessment, publication, or an authorized research-integrity investigation.
• Review records are retained securely in accordance with the journal's record-management practices and applicable data-protection requirements.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, or confidential editorial information to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence services or other tools that may retain, reuse, or disclose the content. Such uploading may breach confidentiality, privacy, copyright, and the author's rights.

Any journal-authorized, limited use of an AI-assisted tool must be disclosed to the editor and must comply with confidentiality and data-protection requirements. AI tools cannot replace expert judgment or be credited as reviewers. Editors and reviewers remain fully accountable for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and integrity of their assessments and decisions.

7. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript using clear, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments. The assessment should address:

Reviewers are not expected to copyedit or rewrite manuscripts. They may identify recurring language or presentation problems, but their principal responsibility is scholarly and ethical evaluation. Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, fabricated citations, unethical research, manipulated peer review, or other integrity concerns.

8. Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor is responsible for the final decision after considering the reports, the manuscript, the authors' responses, applicable journal policies, and any relevant ethical or legal issues. The editor may seek an additional review when reports are incomplete, contradictory, inappropriate, or insufficient for a defensible decision.

Editorial decisions may be appealed through the journal's published Appeals and Complaints procedure. An appeal must identify a substantive scholarly or procedural error and does not guarantee reconsideration, acceptance, or an additional round of review.

9. Timeliness and Communication

The journal seeks to complete editorial assessment and peer review efficiently without compromising quality. Reviewers are given a deadline in the invitation and should accept only when they can provide a careful report within that period. If a delay occurs, the reviewer must inform the editor promptly. Authors will be notified of material delays and may contact the editorial office for a status update through the OJS discussion function or the official journal contact channel.

Published articles should display the dates of submission, acceptance, and publication to support transparency. The journal does not guarantee acceptance, publication, or an unrealistically short review period.

10. Ethical Conduct of Reviewers

• Reviews must be objective, respectful, specific, and supported by academic reasoning.
• Personal criticism, discriminatory language, harassment, defamatory statements, and unsupported allegations are prohibited.
• Reviewers must not request citations primarily to increase citations to themselves, their colleagues, institutions, or a particular journal.
• Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage.
• Reviewers must report any suspected breach of integrity confidentially to the editor and provide supporting information where possible.

11. Special Issues and Editorial Collections

Special issues, invited collections, and conference-related submissions follow the same standards of independent review, confidentiality, conflict-of-interest management, authorship, research integrity, and editorial decision-making as regular submissions. Guest editors operate under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief and may not guarantee acceptance or bypass editorial screening and peer review.

12. Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers and professionals with relevant expertise may apply to join the reviewer database. Applicants should provide their full name, institutional affiliation, academic or professional qualifications, areas of expertise, email address, ORCID identifier, and links to relevant scholarly profiles or publications. Inclusion in the database does not guarantee an invitation; assignments are based on manuscript needs, expertise, independence, availability, and editorial assessment.

Reviewing for Social Sciences Journal is a voluntary scholarly service and is not financially compensated. Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged only with the reviewer's consent and without disclosing confidential manuscript information. Reviewers must follow the journal's Reviewer Guidelines and publication ethics policies.