Overview of the Peer Review Process

The Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Language (JSSAL) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. In this process, the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed to maintain impartiality. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent international reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. The peer review process is designed to assist the editor in making informed editorial decisions and to provide constructive feedback to authors to improve their work.

The peer review process consists of the following steps:

  • Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts via the online submission system. An acknowledgment letter is sent to the author to confirm receipt of the manuscript.
  • Editorial Pre-Screening: The editorial team, led by the Editor-in-Chief and assisted by Section Editors, conducts an initial review within two weeks to assess the manuscript’s suitability for the journal. This includes evaluating its alignment with the journal’s scope, originality, and adherence to submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are rejected at this stage, and a rejection letter is sent to the author stating the reason for rejection.
  • Assignment of Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area, often identified through academic databases such as Web of Science or Scopus. Reviewers must not be from the authors’ institution or have recent joint publications with the authors to avoid conflicts of interest. Reviewers are required to report any conflicts of interest to the Editor within 48 hours of receiving the manuscript. If a reviewer feels unqualified to review the manuscript or cannot complete the review promptly, they must notify the Editor immediately.
  • Review Process: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • The originality of its contribution to the field of social sciences and language studies;
    • The soundness of its theoretical framework and methodology given the topic;
    • The coherence and clarity of its analysis;
    • Its ability to communicate effectively to readers (grammar, style, and readability).
  • Reviews must be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should provide clear, constructive feedback supported by arguments. The typical review period is 4-6 weeks, though this may vary depending on the availability of reviewers or the complexity of the manuscript. For example, reviews may take longer during peak submission periods or for highly technical manuscripts. All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents, and reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality throughout the process.
  • Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor makes one of the following decisions:
    • Accept without revisions: The manuscript is accepted as is and forwarded to production.
    • Accept with minor revisions: The author is requested to make minor changes within 2-4 weeks.
    • Revise and resubmit: The author is requested to make substantial revisions and resubmit the manuscript for a new evaluation, typically within 4-8 weeks.
    • Reject: The manuscript is rejected, and a rejection letter is sent to the author with the reasons for rejection.
  • Production: Accepted manuscripts are sent to the Copy Editor for formatting and reference checks, then to the Layout Editor for structuring into PDF and HTML formats, and finally to the Proof Editor for final confirmation before publication.

JSSAL is committed to ensuring a fair, transparent, and objective review process, adhering to the COPE Guidelines on Peer Review.

Handling Disputes in Peer Review

In cases where disputes or inconsistencies arise during the peer review process, JSSAL follows a structured approach to ensure fairness and transparency:

  • Conflicting Reviewer Reports: If the decisions of the two reviewers differ (e.g., one recommends acceptance while the other recommends rejection), the Editor may assign an additional reviewer to provide an independent assessment. The Editor makes the final decision, evaluating the manuscript and all reviewer reports holistically, prioritizing the manuscript’s academic merit and alignment with the journal’s scope.
  • Author Appeals: Authors who disagree with the review outcome may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of receiving the decision. The appeal must include a detailed explanation of the concerns. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult additional reviewers or the editorial board before making a final decision.
  • Reviewer Bias or Misconduct: If there is evidence of bias, conflict of interest, or misconduct by a reviewer, the Editor will exclude the reviewer’s report and assign a new reviewer to evaluate the manuscript. Evidence of bias may include inappropriate language in the review report, a known personal or professional conflict with the author, or failure to disclose a competing interest. Reviewers are required to report any conflicts of interest to the Editor within 48 hours of receiving the manuscript.
  • Quality Control: The editorial team ensures reasonable quality control for reviews. If an author convincingly questions the objectivity or quality of a review—for example, if the reviewer’s comments are not supported by the manuscript content or are overly dismissive without justification—the Editor will investigate and may assign additional reviewers to ensure an impartial and high-quality evaluation.

All disputes are handled in accordance with the COPE Flowcharts for resolving peer review issues, ensuring an ethical and impartial resolution process.

For more details, see our Publication Policy.