Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Jurisocial Journal of Social Sciences follows a double-blind peer-review process for scholarly manuscripts that pass the journal's initial editorial screening. The journal is committed to ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and in accordance with recognized standards of academic and publication ethics.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Under the double-blind peer-review system:

  • The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers during the review process.
  • The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
  • Review reports are provided to authors without identifying information, subject to the journal's applicable editorial procedures.
  • Authors and reviewers are expected to avoid including information in manuscripts or review reports that could unnecessarily reveal their identities.

The purpose of double-blind peer review is to reduce the potential influence of personal, institutional, professional, or other biases and to encourage assessment primarily on the basis of the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and contribution to the field of social sciences.

Review Process

Manuscripts initially undergo an editorial screening to determine whether they fall within the scope of the Jurisocial Journal of Social Sciences, meet the journal's basic submission requirements, and contain sufficient scholarly merit to proceed to external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. The journal may appoint additional reviewers where necessary, particularly where reviewers provide substantially different assessments or where specialist expertise is required.

Reviewers may be asked to assess, among other matters:

  • Originality and contribution to the field;
  • Relevance to the social sciences and the scope of the journal;
  • Quality and coherence of the research question, objectives, and argument;
  • Methodological or analytical soundness, as applicable;
  • Accuracy and adequacy of supporting evidence, data, and references;
  • Appropriate engagement with relevant scholarly literature;
  • Clarity, organization, and academic presentation;
  • Compliance with research and publication-ethics standards; and
  • Whether the manuscript contains substantial unattributed or improperly reproduced material.

Reviewers provide recommendations and substantive comments to assist the editorial team and authors. A recommendation for publication by reviewers does not itself constitute acceptance.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief and/or authorized editorial team. Editorial decisions may include acceptance, acceptance subject to revisions, invitation to revise and resubmit, or rejection.

The editorial decision will take into account the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.

The journal may request revisions where reviewers or editors identify issues that should be addressed before publication. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Independence

Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential and must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, or academic advantage.

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and should decline to review a manuscript where such a conflict could reasonably compromise their independent assessment.

The Jurisocial Journal of Social Sciences may take appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and independence of the peer-review process.