Reviewer Guidelines

The journal follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review system to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly contribution of all published manuscripts. The review process is designed to uphold academic integrity and maintain high publishing standards in the field of social sciences. The journal uses  double‑blind peer review .

 Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial office to determine whether it falls within the journal’s scope and complies with the journal’s submission guidelines. At this stage, manuscripts may also be screened for plagiarism, ethical concerns, language quality, and overall academic suitability.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before external review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal adopts a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation procedure. This approach is intended to ensure impartiality, objectivity, and fairness in editorial decision-making.

After the preliminary editorial screening, eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts on the basis of several academic considerations, including:

·         Originality and novelty of the research

·         Relevance to the field of social sciences

·         Clarity of research objectives and arguments

·         Adequacy of literature review

·         Soundness of methodology and analysis

·         Quality and interpretation of findings

·         Logical organization and academic writing style

·         Contribution to existing scholarship

·         Ethical compliance and citation practices

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

·         Accept without revision

·         Accept with minor revisions

·         Revise and resubmit for further review

·         Reject the manuscript

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor considers the reviewers’ comments and recommendations before making a final decision. In cases where reviewer opinions differ significantly, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer for further evaluation.

The editorial decision, along with anonymous reviewer comments, is communicated to the corresponding author.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation when necessary.

Failure to submit revisions within the prescribed timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the review process.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are expected to maintain confidentiality and avoid using unpublished material for personal or professional benefit.

The journal is committed to ethical publishing practices and follows internationally recognized guidelines concerning peer review, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and research misconduct.

Final Publication

Once a manuscript successfully completes the peer review and editorial process, it is accepted for publication and undergoes copyediting, formatting, proofreading, and final author approval before publication.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal with a clear explanation and supporting justification. Appeals are reviewed independently by the editorial team, and additional expert opinions may be sought where appropriate.