Peer Review Process

The IJSSER employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to uphold high academic and quality standards. Initially, submissions are vetted by the editorial team to ensure they comply with the journal's ethical standards and guidelines. Manuscripts not adhering to these will be precluded from the review process.

Upon passing the ethical check, the Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary evaluation based on the manuscript's relevance, scope, and overall suitability for IJSSER. Following this assessment, selected manuscripts undergo a meticulous double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both reviewers and authors remain concealed, ensuring an unbiased critique of the submission.

Each manuscript is then appraised by two expert reviewers selected for their scholarly proficiency and expertise pertinent to the manuscript's subject. The Editor-in-Chief will deliberate over the reviewers' recommendations to reach a decision regarding the manuscript's publication status.

Authors will be informed of the outcome of the review process and receive all pertinent feedback for potential revisions or improvements. IJSSER is committed to a swift and efficient review process, facilitated by our online submission system. Manuscripts offering new insights, theoretical advances, innovative methodologies, and substantial empirical findings are earnestly invited for submission and will receive due consideration from IJSSER editors.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. A conflict of interest may arise from personal, institutional, financial, or collaborative relationships with the authors or affiliated institutions. Where a conflict is identified, the editor will reassign the manuscript to ensure an impartial and unbiased evaluation. The journal maintains strict editorial independence to safeguard the integrity of the review process. 

Editorial Decision-Making Procedure

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Handling Editor after careful consideration of all reviewer reports. In cases where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the editor may seek clarification, consult an additional independent reviewer, or conduct an adjudicative assessment. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Structured Revision Process

Authors receiving a decision of minor or major revision are required to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer's comment systematically. All revisions must clearly indicate changes made in the manuscript. Manuscripts undergoing major revision may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision is reached.

Ethical and Integrity Safeguards

All submissions undergo similarity screening with recognized plagiarism-detection software prior to peer review. Manuscripts involving human participants, sensitive data, or experimental procedures must include appropriate ethical approval statements. The journal adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics standards and maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other forms of research misconduct.

Editorial and Peer Review Steps

Submission

1. Submission comes in.
2. Successful and Unsuccessful Submissions: After receiving a submission, our managing editor will review it to ensure it adheres to the journal's guidelines. If they determine that the submission was made correctly, it will be considered a successful submission and processed for desk review. Otherwise, it will be considered an unsuccessful submission. The editorial office will notify the authors about the unsuccessful submission and instruct them on how to resubmit in accordance with the journal's guidelines. Incomplete submissions will be removed from the system. 

Initial Checks / Desk Review

Following a successful submission, an in-house Managing Editor/editorial member will review all submitted manuscripts to ensure they are properly prepared and comply with ethical policies, including those on human and animal experimentation. Manuscripts that don't meet the journal's ethics policy or standards are rejected before peer review. Unprepared manuscripts will be returned for revision and resubmission. The Managing Editor then consults the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors to determine if the manuscript fits the journal's scope and is scientifically sound. Then forward to the next step, such as the peer-review process. Following the desk review, the editor will notify the author via email of acceptance for review or direct rejection. 

Peer Review

After passing the initial screening, a manuscript will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. The authors' identities will not be revealed to reviewers in a double-blind peer-review. Peer review comments are strictly confidential and will only be disclosed with the reviewer's express permission. 

Round 1 (Details process)

1. If accepted, the submission will be assigned to 2 reviewers.
2. A request for review, indicating rejection, request for revision, or acceptance from 2 reviewers within the deadline
3. Reminder to reviewers
4. Reviews come in - wait for both
5. Thank you for mailing to the reviewers
6. Reviews sent out to authors with info about the results of the review (acc, rev, or rej).
7. If revision requests for responses and revisions,
8. English editing: If the submission has linguistic errors, the author may be asked to provide linguistic corrections from a native speaker or an expert.
9. Possible reminders to authors

Round 2

1. Responses and revisions come in
2. Thank you for the mail to the authors
3. Responses and revisions are sent to reviewers with a request to evaluate them (acc, rev, or rej).
4. Evaluations come in
5. Thank you for mailing to the reviewers
6. Evaluations were sent out to authors with info about the results of the review (acc, rev, or rej)

Round 3 (if necessary) (Details process)

1. New responses and revisions come in from the authors
2. Thank you for the email to the authors
3. Revisions are sent to reviewers requesting a second evaluation of responses and revisions (acc, rev, or rej).
4. Second Evaluations come in (acc, rev, or rej) from reviewers
5. Thank you for mailing to the reviewers
6. Results of the second review (acc, rev, or rej) sent to authors
7. If more revision is needed, request responses and revisions

Timeliness and Publication Volume

The IJSSER's peer review timeliness and publication volume can be essentially defined as follows:

Editorial Decision and Revision

All the submissions go through the double-blind peer-review process. The editor-in-chief will communicate the final decision to the corresponding author with the following status:

Based on the feedback from the Reviewers, the Editors will make one of the following decisions:

Round 4 (Details process)

1. After the payment confirmation, the submission will be assigned to the copy editor/layout editor.
2. During the copy-editing process, the copy editor may request additional information about the accepted paper, copyright, author, etc. The authors are responsible for providing the required material within the specified time frame.
3. English editing: If the copy editor finds a linguistic error, the author may be asked to provide the linguistic correction from any native speaker or expert.
4. The galley proof will be distributed to the authors within the specified time frame. Authors can request more time by emailing the editorial office and explaining why.
5. Following copyediting, the submission will be sent to the production

Author Appeals

We give rights to the authors who can appeal the rejection of papers by sending an email to the journal's editorial office. The appeal must include a thorough explanation, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or editor's comments, after the advisory recommendation on the manuscript by the editor-in-chief, which may recommend acceptance, additional peer-review, or upholding the original rejection decision. At this point, a rejection decision is final and cannot be reversed.

In the case of a special issue, the journal's editor will forward the manuscript and related information to the Editor-in-Chief and guest editor, who will be asked to provide their recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, additional peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. At this point, a rejection decision is final and cannot be reversed.

Publication Ethics and Editorial Standards

We are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and ethical responsibility in scholarly publishing. The journal operates under the governance framework of ICR Publications Ltd and adheres to internationally recognized principles of publication ethics.

The Journal follows the core practices and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal applies COPE’s recommended procedures for handling suspected ethical misconduct involving authors, reviewers, or editors. All editorial personnel are informed about ethical standards and are trained to identify and respond appropriately to issues such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, data manipulation, and conflicts of interest.

Detailed guidance regarding ethical responsibilities, submission requirements, and reporting expectations is provided in the journal’s Instructions for Authors. Authors are strongly encouraged to review these policies carefully prior to submission. Policies concerning post-publication updates, including corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern, are transparently outlined in the journal’s updating and correction framework.

Any ethical concerns raised by readers, reviewers, or third parties are investigated by the editorial office in accordance with COPE procedures. Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may consult members of the Editorial Board to evaluate disputes related to the validity of published research. In cases involving authorship disputes, data ownership conflicts, or alleged misconduct, the journal may request clarification from the authors’ affiliated institutions or relevant ethics committees. Authors are expected to cooperate fully and respond to substantiated allegations in a timely and transparent manner.

Authorship and Contribution Integrity

To manage authorship disputes and ensure proper attribution of scholarly contributions, The Journal follows COPE guidance on identifying and resolving authorship concerns. Changes to authorship after submission require written agreement from all listed authors. Where consensus cannot be reached, the journal may require an official statement from the relevant institution(s) confirming authorship eligibility before any correction is made.

Publishing Standards and Reporting Guidelines

The Journal encourages compliance with internationally recognized reporting and transparency standards to enhance the credibility and reproducibility of published research.

Although The Journal primarily publishes interdisciplinary research in the social sciences and economics, many ICMJE principles, particularly those concerning authorship, conflicts of interest, and editorial responsibilities, are applicable across disciplines.

Authors conducting randomized controlled studies are encouraged to follow the CONSORT Statement. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses should adhere to PRISMA guidelines. Studies involving transparency and openness are encouraged to consider the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines. Data management practices should align with the FAIR Principles, ensuring that research data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Where applicable, authors should follow ARRIVE guidelines for reporting in vivo experimental research.

Compliance with relevant reporting standards will be considered during editorial evaluation and final decision-making. Authors are encouraged to indicate adherence to appropriate guidelines in their cover letter and to submit completed checklists where applicable.

Editorial Independence

All manuscripts published in this journal are evaluated through a rigorous double-blind peer review process conducted by independent reviewers and overseen by the Editorial Board. Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal’s scope, and the adequacy of reviewer feedback and author responses.

ICR Publications Ltd does not interfere with editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief and designated Handling Editors exercise full academic independence in determining whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected. Decisions are based exclusively on:

The suitability and expertise of selected reviewers;
The substance and quality of reviewer evaluations;
The scholarly integrity and academic contribution of the manuscript.

In all aspects of its operation, The Journal is guided by the principle of promoting ethical, transparent, and widely accessible scholarly research. The journal remains committed to continuous policy improvement in line with evolving international standards in academic publishing.