Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Sustainable Research in Humanities (JSRHS) are subject to an independent scientific evaluation and peer-review process in accordance with recognized academic standards, ensuring integrity, objectivity, and confidentiality.

  1. Initial Screening

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Board conducts an initial screening to ensure that:

  • The manuscript falls within the scope and objectives of the journal.
  • It meets the basic formal and technical requirements.
  • Its scientific and methodological structure is preliminarily sound.
  • It complies with the journal’s Author Guidelines.
  • There are no apparent reasons preventing the manuscript from being sent for peer review.

Passing the initial screening does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript or guarantee that it will be sent for peer review.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review process, whereby the identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.

To the extent reasonably possible, any information that may reveal the identity of the authors is removed from the version of the manuscript submitted to the reviewers.

  1. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts are normally assigned to at least two reviewers who are specialists in the subject area of the manuscript. In selecting reviewers, the journal considers:

  • Relevant academic specialization and expertise.
  • Independence from the authors.
  • The absence of any conflict of interest.
  • The ability to provide an objective and scientifically sound assessment.

The Editorial Board may appoint a third independent reviewer when there is a substantial disagreement between the reviewers’ reports or when deemed scientifically necessary.

  1. Peer Review Criteria

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers are asked to assess the following:

  • Originality and novelty.
  • Significance of the topic.
  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
  • Soundness of the theoretical framework and literature review.
  • Appropriateness of the methodology and research design.
  • Soundness of data analysis and results.
  • Discussion and interpretation of findings.
  • Soundness of conclusions and recommendations.
  • Quality of citations and references.
  • Clarity of language and academic style.
  • Compliance with research ethics.
  1. Peer Review Decisions

The outcome of the peer-review process may be one of the following:

  • Accept the manuscript for publication.
  • Accept subject to minor revisions.
  • Request major revisions and re-evaluation.
  • Reject the manuscript.

A reviewer’s report alone does not constitute a final decision regarding publication. The Editorial Board is responsible for making the final editorial decision based on the reviewers’ reports and the journal’s academic and editorial policies.

  1. Divergence Between Reviewers’ Reports

In cases where the reviewers’ assessments differ substantially, the Editorial Board may:

  • Request additional clarification from the reviewers.
  • Request further assessment of specific aspects of the manuscript.
  • Refer the manuscript to a third independent reviewer.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editorial Board.

  1. Confidentiality of the Peer Review Process

Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all information contained therein. Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript with any person without prior authorization from the Editorial Board.
  • Use any information or ideas contained in the manuscript for personal or research purposes before its publication.
  • Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.
  1. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review assignment if they have an actual or potential conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity. This includes relevant personal, professional, academic, research, or financial relationships with the manuscript or its authors.

  1. Review Timeline

The journal endeavors to complete the peer-review process as promptly as possible while allowing sufficient time for a thorough and rigorous scientific assessment.

The Editorial Board may replace a reviewer who is unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe.

  1. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are not influenced by manuscript submission fees. Payment of any submission fee does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of the journal’s established academic and editorial standards.