Peer Review Process
The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Studies (JHSSS) employs a double-blind peer review system to all submitted manuscripts. This system aids editors in making decisions on manuscripts and enables authors to improve their manuscripts, if they are indeed considered for publication. A more in-depth description of our peer review process is below.
When the manuscript arrives at the journal’s editorial office, the editor-in-chief of JHSSS carries out an initial desk assessment of the received manuscript based on the suitability of the topic according to the journal’s aims & scope, the author’s adherence to the journal’s guidelines (word count, language clarity, and format), importance of the topic and relevance to the journal’s readership. If the manuscript does not pass these initial checks, the editor-in-chief might reject manuscript immediately. If the manuscript successfully completes the initial in-house assessment, it is assigned to two expert reviewers without revealing the identity of the contributors to the reviewers. The reviewers are initially invited to review the manuscript by sending them the abstract of the manuscript. Upon acceptance to review the manuscript, the reviewers are sent the full text of the manuscript and requested to observe a deadline of a month as a maximum to submit their reports to the editor-in-chief. The reviewers are also required to disclose potential conflicts of interests, if any, that may affect the outcome of blind reviewing process.
The reviewers are provided with an online evaluation form requesting them to judge the manuscript in terms of the paper novelty, originality, valuable contribution to the existed field of study, ethical aspects, scientific misconduct, structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines, references provided to substantiate the content, literature review, design and methodology, clarity of findings and discussion, documentation and referencing. The reviewers are also required to include general and specific anonymous comments to the author(s). If the two reviewers are in disagreement in their judgment on the suitability of the paper for publication, a second round of peer review may be initiated. Each online review report should conclude with a final recommendation for the paper submitted to JHSSS, which can be one of following: (a) accept without any changes; (b) accept with minor revisions; (c) accept with major revisions; (d) revise and resubmit; (e) reject. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the article. The editor-in-chief’s decision is final.