Peer Review Process
The Academic International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (AIJSSH) applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of all published research. The journal follows internationally recognized standards of ethical publishing and editorial best practices.
1. Type of Peer Review
AIJSSH operates a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach promotes fairness, objectivity, and impartial evaluation.
2. Peer Review Workflow
Manuscripts normally proceed through the following stages:
Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Author Revision (if required) → Final Decision → Copyediting → Proofreading → Publication
3. Initial Editorial Screening
Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it falls within the journal's scope and meets the required standards of academic quality, originality, formatting, and publication ethics. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be rejected before external peer review.
All submissions are also screened for plagiarism and compliance with the journal's publication ethics policies before being sent for peer review.
4. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
5. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Originality and contribution to knowledge.
- Relevance to the journal's scope.
- Clarity of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
- Methodological rigor and appropriateness.
- Quality of analysis and interpretation.
- Clarity, coherence, and quality of academic writing.
- Compliance with ethical standards.
6. Reviewer Recommendations
Following evaluation, reviewers normally recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept.
- Minor Revision.
- Major Revision.
- Reject.
7. Editorial Decision
The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor after considering the reviewers' recommendations, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and its suitability for the journal. When reviewer opinions differ significantly, an additional independent review may be requested.
8. Revision Process
Authors requested to revise their manuscripts should submit a revised version together with a detailed response to reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
9. Review Timeline
The journal aims to complete the peer review process within the following approximate timeframes:
- Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks.
- External peer review: 4–8 weeks.
- Final decision: Depending on the extent of the required revisions.
10. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are treated as confidential. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the double-blind peer review process, and unpublished materials must not be disclosed or used for personal benefit.
11. Ethical Standards
Editors and reviewers are expected to comply with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and the COPE Core Practices. Any suspected ethical concerns or conflicts of interest are handled in accordance with the journal's ethical policies.
12. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification to the editorial office. Appeals and complaints are evaluated fairly, objectively, and confidentially in accordance with the journal's policies.
13. Final Acceptance and Publication
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, proofreading, and final author approval before publication. Articles are published only after completion of all editorial and production requirements.
