Monthly Academic Journal of Social Sciences

2. Peer Review and Editorial Policy

All original research articles, short communications and mini or in-depth review articles received by European Journal of Social Sciences (EJSS)® are peer-reviewed. We value peer reviewer’s contribution and the time that reviewers devote to assessing the manuscripts. We consider peer-review as an essential part of the publication process and immensely appreciate the tremendous collective contribution that reviewers make to our journals.

2.1 Selection of reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. Reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their area of expertise and experience. All manuscripts are sent to at least two or more independent reviewers selected by the editors. In case a peer reviewer is not immediately available, we ask authors to suggest reviewers but the editor’s decision is final on the choice of referees.

2.2 Peer-review process

2.2.1 Papers submitted are peer reviewed in a double-blind fashion (both author and referee names are concealed). Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep all details of the editorial and peer review process on a manuscript as confidential. The entire peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously and identities of authors or reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. All correspondence with between editors and referees and editors and authors is confidential. If any confidential discussions have taken place between an author, editor and referee, they will remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all concerned parties or if there are exceptional circumstances.

2.2.2 European Journal of Social Sciences (EJSS)® is committed to rapid editorial process. Reviewers are sent invite email through our Journal Management online system ‘epress’ of University of Surrey (www.epress.ac.uk). Reviewers are asked to respond within 15 days after they receive first invite to review a manuscript. Reviewers should be aware that such messages contain confidential information and should be treated as such. If the reviewers are unable to review due to time constraints or if a reviewer feels they are not qualified to evaluate a particular manuscript, they decline the invite request so the editors can seek an alternative. A first reminder for submitting report is sent after lapse of 15 days and one last reminder is sent after another 15 days.

2.2.3 Reviewers are provided with Crossref Similarity Check Services (iThenticate) to assist them in conducting plagiarism checks on the manuscripts.

2.2.4 Peer-reviewers are asked to submit their reports via our secure and user-friendly online system on ‘epress'(www.epress.ac.uk) by following the link provided in the editor’s invite email.

2.2.5 Reviewers evaluate a manuscript and then submit their report online on an ‘epress’ link provided to them in the invite email. Their recommendations are one of the following:

• Accept (manuscript is accepted without any changes)
• Minor Revisions (manuscript can be accepted after the author makes some minor revisions)
• Revise and Resubmit (manuscript needs to be revised and resubmitted making major changes)
• Reject (manuscripts is rejected and reasons are provided to author for any likely resubmission)

2.2.6 Reviews should do objective evaluations of the research. The main purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. Reviewers must be constructive and courteous. A negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript so that the authors can improve their manuscripts and decide to resubmit later. Reviewers are thus welcome to give a recommendation but their comments which include the information on which the decision should be based are most useful for editors to evaluate and take a final decision on the manuscript. Providing arguments for and against publication for a manuscript is more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation.

In their online report in ‘epress’ reviewers are asked to submit
(i) comments for author(s)
(ii) comments for editor(s)
Reviewers are encouraged to have same tone for both sets of comments.

The sections of the report include the following:
(i) Please provide some constructively expressed feedback for the author,
designed to help them revise or rewrite the article for this journal or another.
(ii) Has the author sufficiently taken advantage of the opportunities available through electronic
publication (e.g. access to program code or data; colour illustrations; animations)?
If not, have you any suggestions that could be forwarded to the author

2.3 Criteria for publication

To be published in European Journal of Social Sciences (EJSS)®, we encourage reviewers to evaluate a paper such that it meets the following general criteria:
a. The work described is novel
b. Authors have provided strong evidence for its conclusions.
c. The work is of significant important for the relevant field and also interesting for other related fields.
Referees are expected to identify flaws and also suggest improvements.

2.4 Editorial decision

2.4.1 European Journal of Social Sciences (EJSS)® editors generally take a decision by following a majority recommendation by reviewers. They also evaluate the arguments raised by reviewers and authors to arrive to a decision. Sometimes additional reviewers are contacted to resolve any disparity. At many occasions revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.

2.4.2 A final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is sent to the author along with recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers. A copy of this final decision is generally sent to all peer reviewers of the article. We do not edit the report when sending to author and we generally send all referee comments intended to the author. However, we reserve the right to edit the report if deemed necessary because of language concerns. We do not publish peer review reports for articles published in our journals. After a manuscript is revised and resubmitted to the journal, editors may send the revised submission for review again to same reviewers to maintain consistency of the review process.

2.5 Editorial Advisory Board

The Editorial Advisory Board of European Journal of Social Sciences (EJSS)® is suitable for well networked academics of standing in various fields of social sciences whose judgements are highly regarded within their discipline, have good track record of publication and have sound academic aptitude. The members of Editorial Advisory Board of have the following responsibilities:
• To support editors in the review process by providing suggestions and/or opinions on submitted papers.
• To provide guidance and advise to editors from time to time on journal policy, scope and content.
• To contribute in promotion and development of the journal inter alia, by endorsing it to academics and institutions
• To participate in the meetings of the board
• To recommend suitable measures for improvement of the journal

This membership is a voluntary position with no remuneration attached to the role.

Last updated: Sep 2018