Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

The Journal of Social Science Perspectives (JOSSP) maintains the highest standards of academic publishing through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This system ensures the integrity, quality, and validity of the research published in the journal. All manuscripts submitted to JOSSP undergo a fair, transparent, and unbiased evaluation by independent experts in the relevant fields of social science.

2. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial board members for alignment with the journal’s aims and scope, ethical compliance, and adherence to submission guidelines. Submissions that fall outside the scope of JOSSP or raise ethical concerns may be returned to authors without further review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JOSSP operates a double-blind peer review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

• Anonymization: Authors’ identities are removed before manuscripts are sent for review, and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the process.
• Selection of Reviewers: Reviewers are selected based on subject matter expertise, academic credentials, and prior reviewing experience. Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent experts.
• Review Criteria: Manuscripts are evaluated on scholarly originality, methodological rigor, theoretical significance, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical research practices. Special emphasis is placed on conceptual contribution, argument coherence, and empirical robustness (where applicable).
• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. Alternate reviewers are appointed in case of identified conflicts.

4. Decision-Making Process

• Editorial Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor reviews all referee reports to make a publication decision, consulting additional experts if needed.
• Possible Outcomes:
• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
• Minor Revisions: Authors are required to make small improvements before final acceptance.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript needs substantial revisions and may be resubmitted for further evaluation.
• Reject: The submission does not meet the journal’s scholarly standards or scope.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving revision requests must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Based on the extent of revisions, the manuscript may be sent for a second round of peer review.

6. Appeal Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, and in some cases, additional expert reviewers may be consulted to ensure fairness and transparency.

7. Ethical Considerations

JOSSP adheres to the ethical standards outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Unethical practices such as plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or breach of consent are subject to immediate rejection and potential sanctions.

8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibilities

All manuscripts and review comments are treated as confidential and must not be shared or used for personal research. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback to support the development of high-quality academic work.

9. Editorial Independence

All editorial decisions at JOSSP are made independently, based solely on scholarly merit. The peer review and editorial process is free from any commercial, political, or personal influences, ensuring objectivity and academic integrity.

This peer review policy reflects JOSSP’s commitment to maintaining a fair, rigorous, and ethical scholarly publishing environment within the field of social science.