Peer Review Process
Social Lens follows a double-blind peer review process. Submissions are assessed for scope, originality, formatting, and ethical compliance. Eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers assess originality, methodological rigor, clarity, literature engagement, contribution to the field, and ethical standards. Possible decisions include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviewer and author identities remain confidential during review. Editors reserve the right to desk reject manuscripts unsuitable for the journal.
The peer review system of Social Lens is designed to ensure academic quality, originality, fairness, and integrity in scholarly publishing. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation procedure.
Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal’s scope and meets the required standards of academic writing, research ethics, formatting, and originality. Manuscripts are screened through Turnitin for plagiarism detection. Submissions that fail to satisfy the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected before external review.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant field of social sciences. Reviewers assess the manuscript on the basis of:
- originality and scholarly contribution;
- relevance to contemporary social science debates;
- clarity of research objectives and methodology;
- quality of analysis and interpretation;
- use of literature and references;
- coherence, structure, and academic writing standards; and
- ethical compliance and research integrity.
Because the journal follows a double-blind review system, reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors are not informed about the identity of reviewers.
After receiving reviewers’ comments, the editorial board may reach one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revisions – the manuscript is accepted in its current form;
- Accept with minor revisions – limited modifications are required before publication;
- Revise and resubmit – substantial revisions are necessary and the manuscript may undergo another round of review;
- Reject – the manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal.
Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a revised version along with a response explaining how reviewer comments were addressed. Minor revisions are generally expected within one week, while major revisions may require one to two weeks or longer depending on the nature of revisions.
The journal adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics standards and encourages transparency, originality, and responsible research practices. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarism, fabricated data, unethical research practices, or duplicate publication may be rejected or retracted at any stage of the publication process.
