Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

The Journal for Social Science Archives (JSSA) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Peer review plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality, validity, and significance of the research published in the journal. This policy outlines the peer review process adopted by JSSA to uphold these standards.

2. Types of Peer Review

JSSA employs a double-blind peer review process, wherein the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This approach is designed to minimize bias and promote impartial evaluation. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant subject matter.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, academic qualifications, and prior experience in the field covered by the manuscript. The editorial board of JSSA is responsible for appointing reviewers, ensuring that they have no conflicts of interest with the authors.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions objectively and provide constructive feedback to authors. Key aspects for reviewers to consider include the originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and significance of the research. Reviewers should also identify any ethical concerns or potential conflicts of interest.

5. Review Process

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to ensure that it adheres to the journal's guidelines. Submissions meeting these criteria are assigned to two or more independent reviewers. Reviewers are given a reasonable timeframe to complete their assessments.

6. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers submit detailed reports that assess the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. They provide specific comments and suggestions for improvement, and they make a recommendation regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection.

7. Author Feedback and Revisions

Authors receive anonymized feedback from reviewers and the editorial board. If revisions are requested, authors are encouraged to address the comments thoroughly and submit a revised manuscript. Revised submissions undergo a second round of peer review if necessary.

8. Editorial Decision

The editorial board considers reviewer comments, author responses, and the overall quality of the manuscript to make a final decision. The decision may include acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.

9. Confidentiality

All information related to the peer review process, including manuscript content and reviewer identities, is treated as confidential. Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the review process, and authors' identities are also protected.