Peer Review Policy
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
Peer Review Policy
How ASSRJ conducts single-blind peer review — the model, process, timelines, reviewer selection and responsibilities, and appeals.
Peer review is central to the integrity of ASSRJ. It helps editors reach sound decisions and helps authors improve their work. This policy explains how the journal conducts peer review.
Type of peer review
ASSRJ operates a single-blind peer-review process: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors unless a reviewer chooses to sign their report. This long-established model supports candid, dispassionate assessment.
Process
| ▸ | Every submission first undergoes an editorial suitability and originality check, including screening with plagiarism-detection software. |
| ▸ | Manuscripts that pass this stage are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. |
| ▸ | Reviewers assess originality, significance, theoretical grounding, methodological rigour, validity of conclusions, clarity and ethical compliance, and recommend a decision. |
| ▸ | The Editor-in-Chief weighs the reviews and makes the final decision; a reviewer recommendation is advisory, not binding. |
| ▸ | Authors receive the reviewers’ comments with the decision. Where revisions are requested, authors must respond point by point; revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers. |
Timelines
Reviewers are asked to return their reports within three weeks, and the Editor-in-Chief aims to reach a first decision within about four weeks of submission. These are targets, not guarantees, and vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Authors may contact the Editorial Office for a status update. An optional Fast-Track Review service is available for a separate fee.
Selecting and managing reviewers
Reviewers are selected for their expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. A reviewer must decline if they have a competing interest (for example recent collaboration, professional rivalry or a financial interest) or cannot review objectively or confidentially. Reviewers suggested by authors may be considered but are not necessarily used; editors may also exclude named non-preferred reviewers at their discretion.
Reviewer responsibilities
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, must not use unpublished material for personal advantage, must provide constructive, evidence-based and respectful feedback, and must alert the editor to any suspected ethical concern, including plagiarism, redundant publication or undisclosed conflicts. Reviewers must not use generative-AI tools to produce their reports or upload manuscripts to AI platforms, as this breaches confidentiality (see the Generative AI Policy).
Appeals
Authors who disagree with a decision may appeal in line with the Complaints & Appeals policy.
