Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Social Impact Studies (JSIS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, integrity, and fairness in its publication process. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review to ensure that published research is original, methodologically sound, and relevant to the journal’s scope.

1. Review Model

  • Double-Blind Peer Review – The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to eliminate bias based on personal, institutional, or geographic factors.

  • Reviewers are selected purely based on subject expertise, professional qualifications, and absence of conflicts of interest.

2. Review Process

  1. Initial Editorial Screening

    • The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor conducts an initial assessment to verify that the submission:

      • Fits within the journal’s scope.

      • Meets the quality and formatting requirements.

      • Passes plagiarism screening.

    • Manuscripts that fail these checks may be desk-rejected without external review.

  2. Assignment to Reviewers

    • Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers with subject expertise relevant to the submission.

    • In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer or an editorial board member may be consulted.

  3. Evaluation Criteria
    Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

    • Originality and contribution to the field.

    • Relevance to social impact studies.

    • Theoretical and methodological rigor.

    • Clarity, structure, and quality of writing.

    • Validity of results and soundness of conclusions.

    • Adherence to ethical research practices.

  4. Reviewer Recommendations
    Reviewers may recommend:

    • Acceptance without changes.

    • Minor revisions (editorial or minor technical changes).

    • Major revisions (substantial content or methodological improvements).

    • Rejection (with justification).

  5. Editorial Decision

    • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, considering reviewers’ reports, overall manuscript quality, and alignment with the journal’s mission.

    • Authors receive anonymized reviewer feedback to guide any revisions.

3. Timelines

  • Initial editorial decision: 1–2 weeks after submission.

  • Peer review process: 4–6 weeks on average.

  • Revised manuscripts: Typically re-evaluated within 2–3 weeks.

4. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content.

  • Provide fair, constructive, and unbiased feedback.

  • Avoid personal criticism and focus on academic merit.

  • Disclose any conflicts of interest immediately.

  • Decline review invitations if lacking expertise or unable to meet deadlines.

5. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe the review process was flawed or biased.

  • Appeals must be submitted in writing with detailed justification.

  • The Editor-in-Chief will review the case and may seek an independent opinion before making a final decision.

6. Post-Publication Peer Review

  • JSIS encourages scholarly discussion and debate through letters to the editor or formal responses.

  • If errors or ethical issues are identified post-publication, the editorial team will investigate and, if necessary, issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern in line with COPE guidelines.