Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Discourse in Social Science Research (IJDSSR) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded double-blind peer review process to ensure high-quality and original research.

The journal is committed to fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, and integrity at all stages, in line with best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Type of Peer Review

IJDSSR employs a double-blind peer review system:

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers
  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors
  • All identifying information is removed before review

This ensures evaluation based solely on academic merit.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo preliminary evaluation before peer review.

Screening Criteria

  • Relevance to journal scope
  • Compliance with submission guidelines
  • Academic quality and clarity
  • Ethical compliance (including plagiarism checks)
  • Completeness of submission

Outcome

  • Non-compliant manuscripts may be desk rejected
  • Suitable manuscripts proceed to peer review

3. Plagiarism and Ethical Screening

Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools.

  • Acceptable similarity: 10–15% (excluding references)
  • Suspected misconduct is investigated
  • Violations may lead to rejection or clarification requests

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

  • Manuscripts are assigned to expert reviewers
  • Selection is based on:
  • Subject expertise
  • Academic experience
  • Publication record
  • No conflict of interest

Reviewers are chosen for competence and impartiality.

5. Review Process

Reviewers provide critical and constructive feedback.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality and novelty
  • Contribution to social sciences
  • Methodological rigor
  • Clarity and structure
  • Relevance to scope
  • Quality of references

Reviewer Reports

  • Confidential comments to editor
  • Feedback for authors
  • Publication recommendation

6. Editorial Decision-Making

Decisions are based on reviewer reports and academic merit.

Possible Decisions

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The editor makes the final decision.

7. Revision and Re-Review

  • Revisions must be submitted within the deadline
  • Authors must respond to all reviewer comments
  • Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed or evaluated by the editor

Failure to address comments may result in rejection.

8. Review Timeline

  • Initial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks (may vary)
  • Revision: as specified

Delays may occur depending on availability and complexity.

9. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts are confidential
  • Reviewers must not share content
  • Unpublished data must not be used
  • Reviewer anonymity is protected

10. Conflict of Interest

  • Reviewers must disclose conflicts
  • Editors must recuse when necessary
  • Undisclosed conflicts may trigger reassessment

11. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct

Issues Include

  • Plagiarism
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Duplicate publication
  • Unethical research practices

Actions

  • Editorial investigation
  • Communication with authors/institutions
  • Rejection, correction, or retraction

All actions follow COPE guidelines.

12. Transparency and Fairness

  • Evaluation based on merit only
  • No discrimination
  • Independent editorial decisions

13. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal decisions
  • Appeals must include justification
  • Additional reviews may be requested
  • Complaints are handled transparently

14. Reviewer Accountability

  • Reviewers must be timely and unbiased
  • Misconduct may lead to removal
  • Performance may be monitored

15. Final Responsibility

The editorial board holds final authority over all decisions to ensure integrity, transparency, and academic quality.

IJDSSR is committed to maintaining a robust and ethical peer review system that supports scholarly excellence.