Peer Review Policy

Introduction

The "Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review" (CJSSR) is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and impactful research within the broad field of social sciences. Peer review is an essential component of this commitment, ensuring the rigorous evaluation of manuscripts and the adherence to academic standards. This policy outlines the principles and procedures governing the peer review process for CJSSR.

Types of Peer Review

CJSSR utilizes a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other. This helps to ensure unbiased evaluation based on the merits of the work itself. In exceptional cases, the Editorial Board may employ an open review process, where reviewers' identities are disclosed to authors while author information remains anonymous. This may be desirable for specific article types or to address reviewer concerns more effectively.

Review Criteria

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Significance: Does the research address a novel and important question within the field? Does it make a substantial contribution to existing knowledge?
  • Methodological Rigor: Are the research methods appropriate and well-executed? Are the data collection, analysis, and interpretation sound?
  • Clarity, Organization, and Quality of Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written, organized, and free from grammatical errors? Does it effectively communicate the research findings?
  • Ethical Considerations: Are all ethical aspects of the research adequately addressed? Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
  • Adherence to CJSSR's Author Guidelines: Does the manuscript conform to the journal's formatting and submission requirements?

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the specific subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The Editorial Board maintains a database of qualified reviewers with diverse backgrounds and research interests. Reviewers are invited based on their relevant expertise and potential conflicts of interest are carefully considered.

Peer Review Process

  1. Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts electronically through the journal's online submission system.
  2. Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor conducts an initial screening to ensure the manuscript adheres to the journal's aims and scope, formatting requirements, and ethical guidelines.
  3. Peer Review: Two or more qualified reviewers are assigned to each manuscript. Reviewers are provided with clear instructions and evaluation criteria.
  4. Reviewer Reports: Reviewers submit detailed reports providing their assessment of the manuscript based on the established criteria. The reports should include specific comments and suggestions for improvement, alongside a recommendation for acceptance, revision, or rejection.
  5. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Associate Editor and reviewers, makes the final decision on the manuscript based on the reviewers' reports and the overall quality of the work.
  6. Author Communication: Authors receive the reviewers' reports, along with the editorial decision. For revisions, authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments in a detailed response and submit a revised manuscript within a specified timeframe.
  7. Appeals: Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written explanation to the Editor-in-Chief. Such appeals will be carefully considered, but the Editor-in-Chief's final decision is binding.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

CJSSR maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are expected to treat all submitted manuscripts with respect and maintain confidentiality. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may bias their evaluation, and such conflicts will be addressed by the Editorial Board.

Timeline

CJSSR strives to provide authors with a timely and efficient review process. The average review time for manuscripts is six to eight weeks. However, the actual timeframe may vary depending on the availability of reviewers and the complexity of the manuscript.