Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy for the Journal of Humanistic Studies and Social Dynamics (JHSSD)

 

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

       The peer-review process is essential to maintain the high quality and integrity of articles published in the Journal of Humanistic Studies and Social Dynamics (JHSSD). It ensures that manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts in the relevant fields, helping to improve the            content through constructive feedback and determining the suitability for publication.

 

  1. Type of Peer Review

       JHSSD follows a double-blind peer review process, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. This ensures that the review process is impartial and free from bias, encouraging honest and objective feedback from reviewers.

 

  1. Review Process Steps
  • Initial Submission: All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team. At this stage, the editors assess the manuscript's relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, and adherence to the submission guidelines.
  •  
  • Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the field.
  •  
  • Review Period: Reviewers are typically given 2 to 3 weeks to complete their reviews and submit their feedback to the editorial team.
  •  
  • Reviewer Feedback: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, relevance to the field, and contribution to existing knowledge. They are asked to provide a detailed assessment and a recommendation on whether the manuscript should be:
    • Accepted without changes
    • Accepted with minor revisions
    • Accepted with major revisions
    • Rejected
    • Editorial Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations. In case of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted. The decision is communicated to the author, along with the reviewers’ feedback.

 

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. They should not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.
  •  
  • Impartiality: Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback. They should evaluate the manuscript solely based on its intellectual content, without regard to the authors' personal characteristics, nationality, or institutional affiliation.
  •  
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial office promptly.
  •  
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial review. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should recuse themselves from the review process.



  1. Author Responsibilities
  • Response to Reviewers: Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments in a timely and thorough manner when revising their manuscript. They should provide a point-by-point response to each comment, detailing the changes made or explaining why a suggestion was not followed.
  • Resubmission: For manuscripts that require revisions, authors must resubmit the revised manuscript within the deadline provided by the editorial team. Failure to resubmit within the specified timeframe may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn.



  1. Appeals

      Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe their manuscript was rejected based on erroneous or biased reviews. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial team, providing a clear and detailed explanation of the issues in question. The editorial          board will review the appeal and make a final decision, which may involve a further review process.

 

  1. Ethical Considerations
  • Plagiarism and Misconduct: Reviewers and editors are expected to notify the editorial office of any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or inappropriate research practices. Manuscripts found to violate ethical standards will be rejected, and appropriate actions will be taken.
  • Reviewer Anonymity: The identities of the reviewers will remain anonymous unless they choose to disclose their names at the end of the review process.



  1. Revision and Resubmission Process
  • Minor Revisions: If the reviewers recommend minor revisions, the authors are expected to make the necessary corrections and resubmit the manuscript within 2-3 weeks.
  • Major Revisions: If the reviewers recommend major revisions, the authors may take up to 4-6 weeks to revise and resubmit the manuscript. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.



  1. Post-Publication Peer Review In certain cases, JHSSD may conduct post-publication peer review if concerns are raised regarding the validity or ethical integrity of a published article. If necessary, the journal may publish an editorial note or retraction.

 

  1. Reviewer Recognition

     JHSSD recognizes the valuable contributions of reviewers to the academic community. Each year, outstanding reviewers are acknowledged in the journal and may receive a formal certificate of recognition for their service