Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (JHSS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, scholarly quality, and ethical publishing. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to ensure objectivity, impartiality, and fairness.
All submissions are evaluated based on originality, methodological rigour, scholarly contribution, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Type of Peer Review
The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, meaning that:
- Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
- Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
Reviewer Selection and Qualifications
Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers who are subject-matter experts in the relevant field. Reviewers may be members of the editorial board or external scholars, selected based on their: Academic qualifications, Research and publication experience, and Expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic.
All reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. Individuals with conflicts of interest are excluded from the review process for that manuscript.
Editorial Screening and Review Process
- Initial Screening
All submissions are received through the OJS system and are assigned to the appropriate Chief Editor or Handling Editor. Each manuscript undergoes an initial plagiarism screening.
- Desk Review
Manuscripts are evaluated to determine their alignment with the journal’s scope, adherence to basic academic standards, and originality through plagiarism screening. Submissions that do not satisfy these criteria are not progressed further, and authors are informed of the decision accordingly.
- Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are anonymised, assigned a reference code, and sent to two independent reviewers for evaluation.
- Revision Stage
Reviewer reports and recommendations are communicated to the author. Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in line with the reviewers’ comments and resubmit within the specified timeframe.
- Subsequent Review Rounds
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. This process may be repeated until a final decision is reached.
- Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor makes the final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection), taking into account the reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial standards. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional reviewers may be consulted.
Manuscripts may be rejected at any stage of the process if authors fail to adequately address reviewer or editorial concerns.
Peer Review Timelines
The journal endeavours to conduct the peer review process in a timely but rigorous manner. While review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds required, the journal typically completes the peer review process within a minimum of two weeks, subject to reviewer availability and the extent of revisions required.
Evidence of Peer Review and Transparency
As evidence of peer review:
- Authors receive detailed peer review reports with comments and recommendations from reviewers.
- The journal archives peer review records for quality assurance and audit purposes.
- Published articles display key editorial dates (submission, acceptance, and publication), where applicable, as evidence that peer review has taken place.
Peer review documentation may be made available to authors, institutions, or research integrity bodies upon reasonable request, in accordance with confidentiality and ethical guidelines.
Commitment to Ethical Peer Review
The journal adheres to internationally recognised standards of publication ethics and peer review best practice. All reviewers and editors are expected to act with professionalism, confidentiality, and integrity throughout the review process.
