Peer Reviewers Policy

Transparent, confidential, objective, and independent evaluation of manuscripts submitted to Social Sciences Journal.

Policy Summary

Social Sciences Journal applies a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Every research manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s originality, relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

Key Peer-Review Principles

Double-Blind Review

Authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities.

At Least Two Reviewers

Each eligible research manuscript is assessed by at least two independent experts.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, data, and review reports are treated as confidential materials.

Editorial Independence

Decisions are based on academic merit and are free from inappropriate influence.

Peer-Review Workflow

1

Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial office checks the completeness of the submission, author metadata, manuscript file, declarations, supporting documents, and compliance with the journal template and author guidelines.

2

Initial Editorial Screening

The editor evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, originality, academic quality, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance, language quality, and adherence to submission requirements.

3

Reviewer Selection

The editor appoints at least two independent reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the manuscript. Reviewer selection considers subject expertise, publication record, institutional diversity, availability, ethical standing, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

4

Independent Peer Review

Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently detailed recommendations. Reviewers submit their reports through the journal’s OJS platform.

5

Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes an editorial decision. When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may appoint an additional reviewer or consult an appropriate member of the Editorial Board.

6

Revision and Final Evaluation

Authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to the reviewers. Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript has adequately addressed the scientific and editorial requirements.

Initial Screening and Desk Rejection

Initial editorial screening is not a substitute for external peer review. Research manuscripts will not be accepted for publication solely on the basis of the initial screening.

A manuscript may be declined before external review when it:

  • Falls outside the journal’s focus and scope;
  • Does not demonstrate sufficient originality or scholarly contribution;
  • Contains serious methodological or analytical weaknesses;
  • Does not comply with applicable ethical standards;
  • Contains plagiarism, redundant publication, or other indications of publication misconduct;
  • Is written in a manner that prevents meaningful academic evaluation; or
  • Does not comply with the author guidelines after an opportunity for technical correction.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the following aspects:

Evaluation Area Principal Considerations
Scope and relevance Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope and relevance to current scholarly or societal issues.
Originality and contribution Clarity of the research gap, novelty, contribution, and advancement of theory, method, policy, or practice.
Literature and framework Appropriateness, relevance, currency, critical synthesis, and adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
Research method Suitability of the design, sampling, instruments, procedures, validity, reliability or trustworthiness, and analytical techniques.
Results and evidence Accuracy, completeness, transparency, and logical presentation of findings and supporting evidence.
Discussion and conclusion Depth of interpretation, relationship with previous studies, implications, limitations, and consistency of conclusions with the findings.
Ethics and integrity Compliance with research ethics, informed consent, confidentiality, authorship, disclosure, citation, and publication-integrity requirements.
Presentation quality Clarity, coherence, organization, academic language, tables, figures, citations, and adherence to journal style.

Editorial Decision Categories

Accept

The manuscript satisfies the scientific and editorial requirements, subject to final editorial preparation.

Minor Revision

Limited revisions are required without substantial changes to the research design or principal findings.

Major Revision

Substantial scientific, methodological, analytical, or presentational revisions are required before reconsideration.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, methodological, or scope requirements.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Accept review assignments only when they possess appropriate subject expertise and sufficient time to complete the review.
  • Provide objective, constructive, respectful, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed comments.
  • Evaluate the manuscript without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, political belief, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.
  • Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, redundant publication, inappropriate citation, unethical research, or other potential misconduct.
  • Distinguish comments intended for authors from confidential comments intended only for the editor.
  • Avoid using review recommendations to require unnecessary citations to the reviewer’s own work or to manipulate citations.
  • Submit the review within the deadline stated in the invitation or request an extension from the editor when necessary.
  • Refrain from contacting authors directly regarding the manuscript without permission from the editor.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, quote, discuss, retain, or use unpublished material, data, arguments, methods, or findings for personal, professional, commercial, or competitive advantage.

Reviewers must not involve another individual in the review without prior permission from the editor. If permission is granted, the identity and contribution of the additional reviewer must be disclosed to the journal.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must immediately disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Reviewers should decline the assignment when an objective evaluation cannot reasonably be ensured.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent or ongoing collaboration with an author;
  • A close personal, supervisory, professional, institutional, or financial relationship;
  • Direct academic or commercial competition;
  • Previous involvement in the preparation of the manuscript or underlying research; or
  • Any circumstance that could reasonably raise concerns regarding independence or impartiality.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, unpublished data, review reports, or confidential editorial correspondence to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external tools that cannot guarantee confidentiality and data protection.

AI tools cannot replace the reviewer’s expert judgment or be listed as reviewers. When an approved AI-assisted tool is used for a limited purpose, the reviewer must disclose its use to the editor and remains fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of the review report.

Editorial Authority and Final Decision

Reviewers provide recommendations to assist the editor; they do not make the final publication decision. The editor is responsible for evaluating the reviewers’ reports, the authors’ responses, ethical considerations, and compliance with journal policies.

The final decision must be supported by clear academic and editorial reasons. Editors must not be influenced by commercial considerations, author status, institutional affiliation, or other factors unrelated to the scholarly quality and integrity of the manuscript.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can provide a clear, evidence-based explanation of a substantial error in the review or decision-making process. Disagreement with a reviewer’s academic judgment alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal. Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with the journal’s Appeals and Complaints Policy.

Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers interested in serving as reviewers may contact the Editorial Office through the journal’s official communication channel. Prospective reviewers should provide their institutional affiliation, areas of expertise, ORCID iD, and links to relevant scholarly profiles or publications.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Possess demonstrable expertise relevant to the journal’s focus and scope;
  • Maintain an active and relevant research or publication record;
  • Understand research and publication ethics;
  • Provide impartial, constructive, and timely evaluations; and
  • Comply with the journal’s confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

Reviewer Recognition

Peer reviewing is an academic and professional contribution. Subject to confidentiality requirements, the journal may recognize reviewers through reviewer certificates, letters of acknowledgment, or publication of an annual reviewer list. Reviewer recognition does not disclose which manuscript was evaluated by a particular reviewer. Reviewing is voluntary and does not influence future editorial decisions concerning a reviewer’s own submissions.

Ethical Standard

Social Sciences Journal expects editors and reviewers to follow internationally recognized principles of fairness, confidentiality, independence, transparency, accountability, and publication integrity. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers .