Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies upholds a rigorous peer review system to ensure the quality of research articles. All submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough peer review process before publication.

Peer reviewers are essential in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process relies on the trust and active participation of the academic community, requiring all involved to act responsibly and ethically. Reviewers play a critical role in this process but may sometimes lack formal guidance on their ethical responsibilities. The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies is committed to providing transparent peer review policies, and reviewers are expected to conduct evaluations in an ethical and accountable manner.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The peer review process is a crucial part of the publication workflow, helping authors refine their manuscripts while assisting editors in making informed decisions. The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system.

In this Double-Blind Peer Review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed. Any details that could reveal the author(s) to the reviewers are removed before the manuscript is shared. Likewise, reviewers’ identities are kept anonymous when their comments are communicated to the author(s).

This Double-Blind Peer Review system is considered more effective as it helps minimize potential bias from either the reviewers or the authors, ensuring a fair and objective evaluation process.

Goals of the Peer Review Process:

In the Double-Blind Peer Review process, reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following key aspects:

• Scope: Is the article appropriate for this publication?
• Novelty: Does the work present original material distinct from previous publications?
• Validity: Is the study well-designed and properly executed?
• Data: Are the data accurately reported, analyzed, and interpreted?
• Clarity: Are the ideas presented clearly, concisely, and logically?
• Compliance: Does the manuscript meet all ethical and journal requirements?
• Advancement: Does the research make a significant contribution to the field?

This structured approach ensures that published articles meet high academic and ethical standards.

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies Peer Review Process

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies follows a structured three-stage review process consisting of an editorial office review, external peer review, and final editorial decision.

The initial stage occurs within the editorial office. Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary assessment to ensure it meets the journal’s basic requirements before being forwarded to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Plagiarism: Each manuscript is assessed for similarity with previously published works using plagiarism detection tools such as iThenticate and Plagiarism Checker X. Manuscripts with a high similarity index, including self-plagiarism, are rejected at this stage. Authors receive a similarity report along with the rejection decision. Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, is a CrossRef initiative designed to help prevent plagiarism.

• Scope: Once the manuscript passes the similarity check, its content is evaluated to ensure alignment with the journal’s focus. If the manuscript does not fit within the journal’s scope, authors may be given the option to transfer it to a more suitable journal. However, transfer does not guarantee acceptance, as the manuscript must still undergo peer review and may be accepted or rejected accordingly.

• References: Authors are encouraged to cite recent research, with a preference for sources published within the last five years.

• English Language: The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies publishes articles exclusively in English, requiring submissions to meet high linguistic standards.

Manuscripts are evaluated for structure, organization, accuracy, and clarity of language in accordance with the journal’s Instructions for Authors. Minor grammatical errors are corrected by the editorial office without altering the manuscript’s content. However, if the language is significantly unclear, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision to enhance clarity.

Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements at this initial stage are sent back to the author(s) for necessary modifications and resubmission. This preliminary review is crucial, as it allows authors to refine their work early in the process. The first stage of the review process is typically completed within one week.

After a manuscript successfully passes the editorial office review, it advances to the second stage, which follows a double-blind peer review process. In this stage, at least two external reviewers—selected from our database, the journal’s editorial board, or other expert sources—are assigned to evaluate the manuscript. These reviewers possess specialized knowledge in the manuscript’s subject area.

To initiate the review, the selected reviewers receive the manuscript’s abstract and are invited to assess its suitability. Once they accept the invitation, the full text of the manuscript is provided, with all identifying details of the author(s) removed to maintain anonymity in accordance with the double-blind peer review system.

Reviewers are responsible for assessing manuscripts and providing constructive feedback to help authors enhance the quality of their work. They evaluate submissions based on originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation, and depth of research.

Upon review, each manuscript is assigned one of the following recommendations:

• Requires minor corrections
• Requires moderate revision
• Requires major revision
• Not suitable for further processing – In this case, the reviewer must provide specific reasons for rejection.

While a manuscript may receive a favorable evaluation from one reviewer, concerns raised by another—especially if they fundamentally challenge the study’s validity—can lead to rejection.

Upon receiving the reviewers’ comments, the editorial office carefully evaluates them. If two reviewers provide significantly different or contradictory assessments of the same manuscript, a third reviewer is assigned for an additional evaluation.

Once all necessary reviews are completed, the reviewers’ feedback—including that of the third reviewer, if applicable—is forwarded to the author(s), with reviewer identities remaining confidential.

The timeline for this stage depends on reviewer availability but is generally completed within one to four weeks.

Using the reviewers’ comments, the author(s) revise the manuscript and submit a corrected version. Upon receiving the revised manuscript, it enters the third and final stage of the review process.

At this stage, the original manuscript, revised version, and all reviewer feedback are forwarded to a journal editor, who evaluates the manuscript and makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept as it is
• Accept with minor corrections
• Requires major corrections
• Send the revised manuscript for another review
• Reject

Manuscripts accepted without changes are scheduled for publication. Those requiring corrections—either minor or major—are returned to the author(s) for revision. The editor reviews the revised manuscript before granting final acceptance.

In some cases, authors may be asked to make further corrections. Additionally, the editor may require a previous reviewer to re-evaluate the revised manuscript before making a final decision.

Communications with Authors

Throughout the review process, authors receive detailed and constructive feedback at each stage, ensuring transparency in the decision-making process regarding their manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Assigned editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts related to the manuscript, such as competitive, collaborative, or other affiliations with the authors, companies, or institutions involved. In such cases, they should inform the editors and recuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The identities and details of participants in the review process are protected to ensure confidentiality.