Review Process & Policy

• Overview
• Review Process in Brief
• Further Consideration
• Assessing Quality of Manuscript
• Publication Ethics
• Reviewers’ Recommendation
• Content of Review Report

Overview

A quality review process and a viable review policy ensures the quality of manuscripts published in a research journal. We believe in good practices of reviewing manuscripts by experts in a relevant field of social science and humanities. By engaging two independent reviewers, the Editorial Office undertakes a double-blind peer-review for each manuscript. In exceptional cases, the authors may be asked to nominate potential reviewer/s on the request of the Editor or Associate Editor of the journal. This is initiated only for a review of manuscripts for which the journal could not avail of the relevant reviewers and has to seek assistance from the authors. Nevertheless, the Editorial Office is not bound to forward a manuscript to the nominated reviewers.

In such a case, the Editorial Office will make sure that there is no conflict of interests before approving the nominated reviewer/s. The reviewers are requested to disclose any conflict of interests before reviewing the manuscripts. On the other hand, authors are allowed to suggest specific reviewer/s for the consideration to exclude them from reviewing the manuscript at the time of submission.

Review Process in Brief

All manuscripts are subject to a thorough peer-review process. Initially, the Editorial Office scrutinizes a manuscript to assess the minimum acceptable standard of the manuscript and to evaluate if it fits in with the scope of the journal. The manuscript is passed through iThenticate Software to examine the level of plagiarism. The Editor or one of the Associate Editors then allocates two reviewers to a manuscript who are expected to provide review reports within four weeks as per the criteria laid out in the evaluation proforma. The recommendation and reports of reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author if required, and the author may submit the revised version of the manuscript. The second round of review may be undertaken by the reviewer/s, if suggested by the Editor or Associate Editor. In the initial review, the reviewers are asked, “Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?”. The revised manuscript is reviewed by the Editor, one of the Associate Editors or Members of the Editorial Board if the reviewer/s did not show his/her willingness to review it again. Finally, the decision of publication is made by the Editor after all the requirements are met by the corresponding author, reviewers, and the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office may reject a manuscript after the submission if it is substantially plagiarized.

Further Considerations

The reviewers are requested to assess the quality of the manuscript and convey their decision to the Editorial Office. The reviewers give their recommendations in terms of acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection of the manuscript. Thus, they provide a strong recommendation for the possibility of publication of a manuscript along with a review report.

The reviewers have the right to accept or regret writing of a review for the assigned manuscript based on their availability, required time, and expertise in the area of a manuscript. In case of their interest in reviewing a manuscript later, they may be given an extension in time or alternative reviewer/s may be suggested by the invited reviewer/s, if possible.

They are requested to evaluate the manuscript following the pre-determined parameters of a quality manuscript, such as implications for the research, structure and presentation, originality, proficiency of English language, scientific rigor, and contribution of the research to a particular field of social sciences and humanities. Besides, the reviewers may give their comments on relevance to the scope of the journal, methods, data sources and modes of inquiry, cross-disciplinary perspectives, International significance, scholarly quality, and conceptual or theoretical framework.

The Editor expects from the reviewers to provide review reports at their earliest, four weeks at the maximum. In case of extraordinary delay, we may allow them to suggest alternative reviewers if they have certain limitations.
The reviewers are advised to read ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS (ENGLISH) developed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Assessing Quality of Manuscript

The reviewers assess the quality of a manuscript by considering the indicators such as implications of the study, structure, and presentation, originality, proficiency of English language, scientific rigor, and contribution of the research to a particular field of social sciences and humanities. Each of them is briefly elaborated in the following lines:

Originality/Genuineness: Are the research problem and related questions to be answered or hypotheses to be tested original and operationally defined? Which existing gaps do researchers aim to address?

Implications of the study: What are the theoretical and/or practical implications of the research and how it can be useful for improving the prevailing practices and bringing reforms and changes in society. What can further studies be undertaken in the area of the research?

Structure & Presentation: How different sections or components of a manuscript such as research questions or hypotheses, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions are structured and presented? These components should be consistently and coherently articulated.

Proficiency of English Language: Are the principles of scholarly practices and academic writing considered while composing the manuscripts? Does the manuscript meet the minimum standard of English proficiency? Is the language used understandable for international scholarly communities? Does it reflect the complexity of a research problem or conceptual analysis of a review-based problem?

Scientific Rigor: Is the research study well-designed and rigorously investigated? Are the questions of reliability and validity are appropriately addressed? What measures have been taken to improve the quality of a qualitative study? Is the design or approach of the research aptly employed? Have the questions of what, why, and how been addressed with justifications?

Contribution of the Research: Does the research add to the existing body of knowledge and contribute innovatively to the relevant field of study? Does the study address the needs and interests of the readers and researchers in the field?

The reviewers are advised to read GUIDELINES ON GOOD PUBLICATION PRACTICE developed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Publication Ethics

In addition to these indicators used for assessing the quality of manuscripts, the reviewers should focus on the ethical aspects of publications. It should be noted that authors have credited the sources by appropriate citation and referencing method. The manuscript should not have been submitted to or published in another journal as a whole or parts. In qualitative research studies, the authors must ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants, and it should be assured that the results of the study would not harm them anyway.

For more details, the reviewers should read Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement of the Journal.

Conflict of Interests

The editorial office attempts to take necessary measures to avoid any conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the reviewers are requested to examine the manuscript to see if they suspect a conflict of interest that may cause bias on their part. We expect from the reviewers to report such manuscripts so that alternative reviewers may be assigned for ensuring unbiased review reports and maintaining ethical values of publication.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The Editorial Office undertakes a double-blind peer-review process with two independent reviewers. Reviewers may nominate another researcher, academic colleague, or doctoral candidate as a reviewer who has expertise in the area of the manuscript. However, in any case, they should understand that the content of the assigned manuscript should be kept confidential, and they should not disclose their identity to the corresponding author, co-authors, or any other colleague or friend who may know the authors of the manuscript.

Reviewers’ Recommendation

Reviewers give their recommendations in terms of acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection of the manuscript. Each of the recommendations is briefly interpreted below:

Acceptance: The manuscript needs no further changes and accepted unconditionally. There are very few manuscripts that are accepted after the submission at the first step.

Acceptance after Minor Revisions: The manuscript meets all the standards of publication but needs to address a few minor revisions that may take a few days for re-submission.

Re-submit after Major Revisions: The author is recommended to incorporate significant changes suggested by the reviewer/s. It may concern with methodological issues, analysis, and presentation of the results or alike. It may take a couple of weeks or so. The revised manuscript is forwarded to the reviewers again to examine if the suggested changes have been appropriately incorporated.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet most of the parameters of quality and lacks originality. It did not require further changes and rejected without a recommendation for re-submission. It is rejected unconditionally.

Content of Review Report

A review report consists of information on reviewers, the objectives of the study, and its contributions to a specific field. It should broadly reflect significant areas of strength and weak points, and authors should be explicitly recommended how they can improve the manuscripts given the weaknesses. The reviewers may also report specific areas by referring to a citation, an argument, a figure, or a table.

Manuscript Publication

After the final acceptance of the manuscript, it is processed through English editing and proofreading by authors and published in the journal. The manuscript may subject to plagiarism tests again if substantial changes have been incorporated in the final draft.