Peer Review Policy

Journal of Excellence in Social Sciences (JESS)

The Journal of Excellence in Social Sciences (JESS) maintains a fair, independent, rigorous, confidential, and transparent peer-review process. Peer review evaluates the scholarly quality, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

JESS follows a double-blind peer-review model. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

Every scholarly manuscript proceeding to external peer review must receive completed assessments from at least two independent external reviewers before acceptance. This requirement applies equally to regular submissions, invited scholarly articles, and articles submitted to special issues or thematic collections.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and ethical integrity, independently of authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, geographic location, gender, political beliefs, religious beliefs, or ability to pay publication-related charges.

1. Scope of Peer Review

All scholarly articles considered for publication in JESS undergo editorial assessment and external peer review before acceptance. These include:

Original research articles;
Review articles;
Systematic literature reviews;
Conceptual and theoretical articles;
Qualitative research;
Quantitative research; and
Mixed-methods research.

Invited scholarly articles and special-issue articles follow the same peer-review requirements as regular submissions. An invitation to contribute does not guarantee acceptance.

Non-scholarly content, such as administrative editorials, announcements, correction notices, and retraction notices, may undergo editorial assessment rather than external peer review. Such content is clearly identified, and its review status is stated.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Under the journal’s double-blind model:

Reviewers are not informed of author identities;
Authors are not informed of reviewer identities;
Reviewer identities remain confidential in connection with individual manuscripts; and
Authors must prepare anonymised manuscript files according to the Author Guidelines.

The journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity. Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where authors may be identifiable through their subject matter, citations, datasets, preprints, or other publicly available information.

Peer-review reports are confidential editorial records and are not routinely published with articles.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening before external peer review.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated academic editor assesses:

Alignment with the journal’s Aims and Scope;
Scholarly relevance and contribution;
Basic methodological suitability;
Originality;
Compliance with the Author Guidelines;
Research and publication ethics;
Authorship and disclosure information; and
Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts may be returned for technical corrections or rejected at this stage if they are unsuitable for further consideration.

Rejection following initial editorial screening does not constitute external peer review.

4. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Every scholarly manuscript that proceeds to external peer review must be assessed by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate subject and methodological expertise before acceptance.

Assigning or inviting reviewers alone does not satisfy this requirement. At least two independent reviews must be completed and considered in the editorial decision.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

Relevant scholarly and methodological expertise;
Appropriate research or publication experience;
Independence from the authors and the journal’s editorial team;
Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality; and
Ability to provide an objective, constructive, and timely assessment.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. A reviewer whose impartiality is compromised must not assess the manuscript and must be replaced by another qualified independent reviewer.

The responsible editor verifies reviewer suitability and ensures that the required reviews are completed before acceptance. Additional independent reviews may be obtained where necessary.

5. Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may suggest reviewers when requested or permitted by the journal. These suggestions are recommendations only.

The journal is not obliged to invite suggested reviewers. Final responsibility for reviewer selection rests with the editorial team.

Authors must not recommend individuals whose personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships could compromise reviewer independence.

Before inviting an author-suggested reviewer, the editorial team verifies the individual’s identity, relevant expertise, affiliation, and independence.

6. Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose relationships or interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts include:

Recent or ongoing collaboration with an author;
Close personal or professional relationships;
Institutional relationships that compromise independence;
Financial interests related to the research;
Academic competition or disputes; and
Other circumstances that could affect objective assessment.

Reviewers must inform the responsible editor of any relevant conflict before accepting or continuing a review.

Editors must not handle or decide on manuscripts where their impartiality is compromised. Such submissions must be reassigned to an appropriately qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers provide fair, evidence-based, constructive, professional, and timely assessments.

As appropriate to the article type, reviewers consider:

Significance and clarity of the research question;
Originality and scholarly contribution;
Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
Suitability and transparency of the methodology;
Quality of data, analysis, and interpretation;
Whether conclusions are supported by evidence;
Relevance and balance of the literature;
Clarity and organisation;
Ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;
Study limitations; and
Reproducibility and transparency.

Reviewers must distinguish major concerns from minor recommendations and focus their comments on the manuscript’s scholarly content.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers must not request citations solely to increase citations to their own work, associates, or particular journals.

Reviewers who cannot complete an assessment within the agreed period must notify the editorial office promptly.

8. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and peer-review reports are confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not:

Disclose submission content to unauthorised persons;
Distribute manuscript files without authorisation;
Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage; or
Use confidential information in a way that disadvantages authors.

Consultation with an additional expert requires prior permission from the responsible editor. Any approved consultant must observe the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review process ends.

9. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Generative AI must not be used to generate substantive peer-review assessments or editorial decisions.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, supplementary material, or review reports to generative AI services.

Reviewers and editors remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, integrity, and confidentiality of their assessments.

Journal-authorised tools used for routine technical checks, such as text-similarity screening, must operate with appropriate confidentiality safeguards and human oversight. Any routine use of such tools by the journal is disclosed through its applicable policies.

Automated findings must be evaluated by a responsible editor. They must not serve as the sole basis for an editorial decision.

10. Supplementary Material

Supplementary material essential to evaluating a manuscript’s methods, evidence, interpretation, or conclusions is provided to reviewers as part of the assessment.

Reviewers assess such material where relevant to the manuscript’s scholarly claims.

Authors must ensure that supplementary files intended for double-blind review do not unnecessarily reveal their identities or disclose confidential participant information.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

Acceptance;
Minor revision;
Major revision; or
Rejection.

Recommendations are advisory. Final decisions are made by the responsible academic editor after considering the completed reviewer reports, the manuscript, and applicable journal policies.

A manuscript is not automatically accepted or rejected solely because of the numerical balance of reviewer recommendations.

12. Editorial Decisions

The responsible editor may issue the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal’s scholarly and ethical requirements, subject to any remaining production requirements.

Minor revision: Limited changes are required before a final decision.

Major revision: Substantial changes are required before further consideration.

Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in JESS.

Authors receive the editorial decision and relevant reviewer comments, subject to necessary confidentiality and ethical restrictions.

13. Final Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the journal’s scholarly content.

Final acceptance decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised academic editor after the required independent reviews have been completed and considered.

Decisions take account of:

Scholarly merit;
Reviewer assessments;
Methodological quality;
Originality;
Relevance to the journal’s scope;
Ethical compliance; and
Research integrity.

Commercial interests, sponsorship, advertising, personal relationships, and authors’ ability to pay do not determine editorial decisions.

No author is guaranteed acceptance.

14. Revision and Author Response

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

A revised manuscript; and
A response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

Authors may disagree with a recommendation but must provide a reasoned scholarly explanation.

Submitting a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

15. Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the responsible editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional independent reviewers.

The approach depends on the extent of the revisions, unresolved concerns, and the need for specialist assessment.

Major methodological or analytical revisions receive further expert review where necessary to establish whether substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.

Editorial assessment of revisions does not replace the requirement for at least two completed independent external reviews before acceptance.

16. Additional Review

The responsible editor may obtain additional independent reviews where:

Reviewer recommendations conflict substantially;
Specialist expertise is required;
Important methodological questions remain unresolved;
Ethical or integrity concerns require expert assessment; or
Further evaluation is necessary for a fair decision.

Additional review strengthens the assessment and is not used to secure a predetermined outcome.

17. Research Integrity During Peer Review

The journal may suspend assessment if concerns arise about:

Plagiarism or duplicate publication;
Fabricated or falsified data;
Inappropriate image manipulation;
Authorship irregularities;
Citation manipulation;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
False reviewer identities; or
Compromised peer review.

Concerns are handled under the journal’s Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct & Whistleblower Policy, and Plagiarism Policy.

Where applicable, the journal follows COPE guidance. Authors are given an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Acceptance may be reconsidered before publication if credible evidence raises substantial concerns about the manuscript’s reliability or ethical integrity.

18. Submissions from Editors, Board Members, and Reviewers

Submissions authored or co-authored by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, or other persons associated with JESS follow the same assessment requirements as other submissions.

Each manuscript must receive completed assessments from at least two independent external reviewers and be handled by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

An author associated with the journal must not:

Select reviewers for their own manuscript;
Access confidential reviewer identities or reports through editorial privileges;
Participate in deliberations about their manuscript; or
Make its acceptance decision.

The journal monitors internal authorship to ensure that research articles with at least one author who is an editor, editorial board member, or reviewer do not exceed 25% of the research articles in either of the latest two issues.

19. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Special issues, thematic collections, and guest-edited content follow the same standards of editorial oversight, research integrity, and peer review as regular submissions.

The following requirements apply:

Scholarly articles must fall within the journal’s Aims and Scope.
Every scholarly article must receive completed assessments from at least two independent external reviewers before acceptance.
The journal’s double-blind procedures apply equally to special-issue and invited scholarly articles.
Invitations or inclusion in a special issue do not exempt articles from peer review or guarantee acceptance.
Guest editors’ credentials and expertise must be checked and approved before appointment.
The Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial board members must supervise guest editors.
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and appropriately managed.
Guest editors must not handle or decide on manuscripts where their impartiality is compromised.
The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the content and integrity of every special issue.
Special-issue articles must be clearly identified.

Guest-edited content is not exempt from the journal’s editorial, ethical, authorship, or peer-review requirements.

20. Manuscripts Authored by Guest Editors

A manuscript authored or co-authored by a guest editor must be handled independently by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

The guest editor must not select reviewers, access confidential review information through editorial privileges, or influence the decision on their own manuscript.

The same requirement for at least two completed independent external reviews applies.

Articles authored or co-authored by guest editors must constitute no more than 25% of the special issue’s total articles.

21. Peer-Review Time

JESS aims to complete assessment efficiently while maintaining its quality and independence.

Review duration varies with reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, specialist assessment, revisions, and authors’ responsiveness.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed decision date or acceptance.

Where substantial delays occur, the editorial office informs the corresponding author of the status and reason for the delay. Authors may contact the editorial office and request withdrawal under the journal’s applicable procedures.

Published scholarly articles display their submission, acceptance, and publication dates.

22. Reviewer Recognition

JESS values reviewers’ contributions.

Collective acknowledgements or individual confirmation of reviewing activity must preserve the confidentiality of the double-blind process.

The journal does not publicly identify an individual as the reviewer of a particular manuscript under its standard double-blind model.

23. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, research integrity, and applicable journal policies.

Decisions are independent of:

Authors’ ability or willingness to pay;
Institutional status;
Advertising or sponsorship;
Commercial interests; and
Personal relationships.

The publisher’s administrative activities do not replace academic editorial judgment.

24. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they identify a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable error.

Appeals must explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information. Disagreement alone does not guarantee reconsideration.

Where appropriate, an appeal is assessed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

Complaints about review conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, research integrity, or editorial procedures are handled under the journal’s Publication Ethics and complaints procedures.

Appeals and complaints do not guarantee reversal of a decision.

25. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This policy operates alongside the journal’s:

Peer review does not alter authors’ copyright ownership or the journal’s open-access and licensing arrangements.

26. Policy Transparency

This policy is publicly available to authors, reviewers, readers, and indexing services.

The journal reviews its procedures periodically and communicates substantive changes through its website. Related policy pages and author guidelines are updated consistently.

Contact

Questions about peer review, editorial decisions, appeals, or complaints may be directed to:

Editorial Office
Journal of Excellence in Social Sciences (JESS)
Email: jess@smarcons.com
Contact information: Journal Contact Page