Peer Review Process

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

The journal applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all published articles in the fields of Social Sciences and Humanities. Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for evaluating scholarly merit, improving manuscript quality, and maintaining high ethical and academic standards.

2. Type of Peer Review

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to ensure objectivity and minimize bias.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor to assess scope, originality, academic quality, formatting compliance, and ethical standards. Manuscripts not meeting these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Plagiarism screening is conducted using Turnitin software. The similarity index must be below 20%, with no more than 5% from any single source. AI-generated content should not exceed 30%.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in Social Sciences or Humanities. Reviewers are selected based on qualifications, subject knowledge, and absence of conflicts of interest.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Clarity of theoretical and conceptual framework
  • Methodological rigor and appropriateness
  • Quality of analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity and coherence of writing
  • Compliance with ethical standards

6. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommend one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required (revise and resubmit)
  • Reject

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The editorial team makes the final decision based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, and journal relevance. Additional reviews may be requested in cases of conflicting evaluations.

8. Revision Process

Authors must submit revised manuscripts along with a detailed response to reviewers. Revised submissions may be re-evaluated by reviewers.

9. Timeline of the Peer Review Process

  • Initial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision and final decision: depends on revisions

10. Confidentiality and Anonymity

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose content or use unpublished data. Author and reviewer identities remain anonymous.

11. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must declare conflicts of interest, conduct objective evaluations, and report any suspected ethical misconduct.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a formal justification. Complaints are handled transparently by the editorial board.

13. Final Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and proofreading. Authors must approve final proofs before publication.