Peer Review Policy

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned member of the Editorial Board before being considered for external peer review. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:

  • Alignment with the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Originality, academic relevance, and potential scholarly contribution.
  • Compliance with ethical publishing standards and research integrity requirements.
  • Adherence to the journal's submission guidelines, formatting, and reporting requirements.
  • Similarity screening for plagiarism or other forms of publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum editorial or ethical standards, or contain evidence of plagiarism or other serious publication misconduct may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JSSP follows a double-blind peer-review model in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the editorial process.

  • Each eligible manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, and previous reviewing performance.
  • Reviewers evaluate originality, methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, analytical quality, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall scholarly merit.
  • Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.
  • Reviewers provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and timely recommendations.

JSSP Peer Review Process

STAGE 1 Manuscript Submission
 
STAGE 2 Editorial Screening
 
Scope & Technical Compliance?
✕ Desk Reject
✓ External Review
 
STAGE 3 Double-Blind Review
Minimum Two Reviewers
 
STAGE 4 Editorial Assessment
 
Editorial Decision
✕ Reject
⟳ Minor / Major Revision
✓ Accept
 
STAGE 5 Copyediting
Production
Publication

3. Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Handling Editor based solely on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and the scholarly quality of the submitted manuscript.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Acceptance without revision.
  • Acceptance subject to minor revisions.
  • Major revisions with invitation to resubmit.
  • Rejection.

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation whenever considered appropriate by the Editorial Office.

4. Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal written appeal to the JSSP Editorial Office by emailing editor@jossp.com. Appeals should provide a clear scholarly justification supported by appropriate evidence. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, by additional independent reviewers or editorial advisors. The decision reached following the appeal review shall be final.

5. Ethical Standards & Confidentiality

JSSP adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship practices, and any other form of research or publication misconduct.

  • All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related documents are treated as strictly confidential.
  • Reviewers must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
  • Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical conduct, and relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Editorial decisions are never influenced by commercial interests, institutional affiliations, political viewpoints, nationality, gender, religious beliefs, personal relationships, or an author's ability or inability to pay the Article Processing Charge (APC).

6. Commitment to Transparency & Fairness

The Journal of Social Science Perspectives (JSSP) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, timely, and unbiased peer-review process that promotes research integrity and high-quality scholarly communication. The journal's editorial policies have been developed with reference to internationally recognized publishing standards, including the COPE Core Practices, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (jointly developed by COPE, DOAJ, and OASPA), together with publicly available journal evaluation guidance published by major international indexing services such as Scopus and Web of Science. These references support the journal's ongoing commitment to editorial excellence, transparency, ethical publishing, and continuous quality improvement and should not be interpreted as indicating current indexing, endorsement, or evaluation by these services.

Questions regarding the peer-review process may be directed to the JSSP Editorial Office at editor@jossp.com.