Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy/Process, Editorial Oversight, and Publication Timeline

The Journal of Research in Social Sciences (JRSS) follows a strict double-blind peer-review policy. The journal obtains independent scholarly advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers who are not members of the journal's Editorial Team/Editorial Committee.

Following the initial Desk Review by the Editorial Team, manuscripts that meet the journal's basic academic, methodological, ethical, and scope requirements are sent for local and foreign/international peer review. The reviewers' suggestions, observations, and recommendations are communicated to the author(s) through the Editorial Team.

For the sake of transparency and academic rigor, where reviewers request to examine a revised manuscript, JRSS may resend the revised manuscript to the same reviewer(s) for a second round of review. Where reviewers recommend publication subject to minor changes, the Editorial Team ensures that the required changes, together with necessary editorial corrections, have been incorporated before publication.

To facilitate a smooth and transparent peer-review process, authors are required to follow the journal's manuscript submission requirements and submission procedure available through the JRSS online submission system. In order to ensure a smooth and transparent peer review process, the authors are required to closely follow the article submission process at https://jrss.numl.edu.pk/index.php/jrss/about/submissions

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited by the author(s). Where a statement, observation, derivation, argument, method, or finding appears to have been previously reported, the reviewer should draw the matter to the Editor's attention and, where possible, provide the relevant citation.

Reviewers should also bring to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity, overlap, or possible duplication between the manuscript under consideration and any other published or known work of which they have personal knowledge.

Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the Editor for appropriate assessment.

Initial Screening (Desk Review)

All submissions to JRSS are first evaluated by the Editor, Managing Editor, Sub-Editor, or another designated member of the Editorial Team to determine whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope and meets the basic academic and submission requirements.

The initial Desk Review may consider:

ü  relevance to the aims and scope of JRSS;

ü  originality and potential scholarly contribution;

ü  clarity of the research problem, objectives, questions, and hypotheses, where applicable;

ü  adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;

ü  quality and relevance of the literature review;

ü  appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;

ü  quality of data, analysis, and interpretation;

ü  coherence between objectives, methodology, findings, and conclusions;

ü  academic writing, organization, tables, figures, and references;

ü  ethical and research-integrity requirements;

ü  compliance with JRSS submission guidelines; and

ü  overall suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scope, basic academic quality, methodological requirements, ethical standards, or submission requirements may be desk-rejected, normally within approximately 30 working days, subject to the volume of submissions and the complexity of the initial assessment.

All submitted manuscripts are subject to appropriate plagiarism/similarity screening and, where applicable, AI-assisted content/detection checks using available editorial screening tools. Such checks are used as part of the journal's broader assessment of originality and research integrity and do not, by themselves, constitute a final determination of misconduct.

Assignment and Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial Desk Review are assigned to appropriate external reviewers. JRSS normally seeks a minimum of two independent expert reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers are selected according to their academic expertise, research background, methodological competence, publication experience, and familiarity with the subject matter of the manuscript. Depending on the subject and requirements of the manuscript, reviewers may be  selected from relevant academic and research institutions within Pakistan and outside Pakistan.

Review Model

JRSS follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

Authors' names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information are removed from the anonymized manuscript submitted for review where practicable. Reviewers are not informed of the identity of the author(s), and authors are not informed of the identity of the reviewer(s).

The double-blind process is intended to support an impartial assessment based on the academic quality, originality, methodology, evidence, analysis, and contribution of the manuscript.

Review Timeline

JRSS seeks to maintain an efficient and timely peer-review process while recognizing that review periods may vary according to reviewer availability, subject specialization, manuscript complexity, and the need to identify appropriate reviewers.

ü  Reviewer invitation: Reviewers are typically given 2 weeks to accept or decline an invitation.

ü  Review completion: Once a reviewer accepts an assignment, the reviewer is normally requested to submit the review within 4 weeks.

ü  Follow-up: The Editorial Team may send reminders to support timely completion of reviews.

Delays may occur because of reviewer availability, workload, subject specialization, manuscript complexity, reviewer withdrawal, or the need to identify replacement reviewers. Accordingly, the stated review periods are indicative rather than guaranteed.

Editorial Oversight

The Editorial Team of JRSS, under the overall responsibility of the Editor, is responsible for overseeing the academic quality, integrity, consistency, and efficiency of the journal's editorial and peer-review processes.

The Editorial Team performs two primary functions.

1. Management of Regular Submissions

The Editorial Team manages regular submissions by:

ü  conducting or overseeing the initial Desk Review;

ü  assessing the suitability of manuscripts for external review;

ü  assigning appropriate editorial responsibility where required;

ü  identifying and inviting suitable reviewers;

ü  maintaining the double-blind review process;

ü  communicating reviewer comments and editorial decisions to authors;

ü  following up with reviewers to support timely completion;

ü  assessing revised manuscripts and authors' responses; and

ü  making independent editorial decisions based on the available scholarly evidence and review reports.

Each manuscript is normally sent to at least two independent reviewers.

Editorial decisions are made independently and with due consideration of the available reviewer reports. Where reviewer reports conflict significantly, where authors raise substantive concerns, or where a possible editorial or procedural issue arises, members of the Editorial Team may consult one another to reach a fair, balanced, and academically sound decision.

2. Special Issues and Thematic Collections

The Editorial Team may also evaluate and approve proposals for Special Issues or thematic collections of JRSS. Such proposals may be assessed on the basis of:

ü  originality of the proposed theme;

ü  scholarly significance;

ü  relevance to the scope of JRSS;

ü  thematic coherence;

ü  potential contribution to the relevant field; and

ü  availability of appropriate scholarly expertise.

Where Guest Editors are appointed, they may assist in managing submissions within the Special Issue or thematic collection.

Guest Editors are expected to follow JRSS's peer-review, publication-ethics, and editorial policies. The Editor retains overall supervisory authority over the editorial process and may be consulted in cases involving conflicts of interest, disputed decisions, ethical concerns, or other significant issues.

Editorial Conflict of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists.

In such cases, another appropriately qualified editor may be assigned responsibility for the manuscript to ensure independence and impartiality.

The same principle applies to members of the Editorial Team, Guest Editors, and other individuals involved in editorial decision-making.

Decision Making Statement: Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Editorial decisions are generally based on a minimum of two completed external peer reviews, subject to the nature of the manuscript and the circumstances of the review process.

Possible editorial decisions include:

ü  Accept

ü  Minor Revisions

ü  Major Revisions (Revise and Resubmit)

ü  Reject

The most common outcome for manuscripts requiring substantive changes is a request for a revised and updated manuscript.

Where revision is requested, authors are required to submit:

ü  a revised version of the manuscript; and

ü  a detailed response to the reviewers' comments explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

The response to reviewers is evaluated alongside the revised manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers where their further assessment is considered necessary. Alternatively, the Editorial Team may assess the revisions itself or seek additional expert opinion.

JRSS will normally allow up to three rounds of revision, although the number of revision rounds may vary depending on the nature and extent of the required changes. A request for revision does not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication.

Reviewers

Reviewers should decline an assignment where a conflict exists or where circumstances may reasonably affect their impartiality. This may include:

ü  recent collaboration with the author(s);

ü  current or recent institutional affiliation;

ü  personal relationships;

ü  professional or academic competition;

ü  financial interests; or

ü  other circumstances that may compromise independent assessment.

Editors

Editors must recuse themselves from editorial decision-making where an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists. Where a conflict arises, the manuscript may be reassigned to another qualified editor or an alternative editorial arrangement may be adopted to preserve independence and confidentiality.

Ethical Conduct in Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to:

ü  provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback;

ü  maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials;

ü  avoid personal, discriminatory, or inappropriate criticism;

ü  focus comments on the scholarly content and quality of the manuscript;

ü  maintain professional and respectful communication;

ü  identify relevant uncited scholarship;

ü  alert the Editor to substantial similarity or possible duplication;

ü  disclose conflicts of interest; and

ü  refrain from using unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

The Editorial Team reserves the right to moderate, clarify, or request revision of reviewer reports that contain inappropriate, offensive, discriminatory, or otherwise unsuitable language.

Confidentiality of the Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to JRSS and all materials associated with their review are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, discuss, or use the manuscript or its contents without authorization from the Editorial Team.

Review reports and reviewer identities are kept confidential in accordance with the journal's double-blind review model. Authors are likewise expected to respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and must not attempt to identify or contact reviewers regarding their manuscript.

Submission to Publication Timeline

JRSS is committed to maintaining an efficient, transparent, and academically rigorous publication process.The following timelines are indicative estimates rather than guaranteed publication periods:

ü  Submission to First Decision: Approximately 4–8 weeks

ü  Submission to Final Decision: Approximately 16–24 weeks, depending on the number and extent of revision rounds

ü  Acceptance to Publication: Approximately 16–24 weeks, subject to final editorial processing, copyediting, proofreading, formatting, production, and issue scheduling

These timelines may vary depending on:

ü  reviewer availability and responsiveness

ü  manuscript complexity;

ü  the need to identify replacement reviewers;

ü  conflicting reviewer recommendations;

ü  additional rounds of peer review;

ü  author responsiveness to revision requests;

ü  editorial and production requirements; and

ü  the journal's publication schedule.

The stated timelines therefore represent the journal's target/estimated processing periods and should not be interpreted as guaranteed deadlines.

Commitment to a Fair and Rigorous Review Process

JRSS is committed to maintaining a peer-review system that is double-blind, independent, confidential, objective, constructive, transparent, and academically rigorous. The journal recognizes that peer review serves two complementary purposes: assisting the Editorial Team in making informed publication decisions and helping authors improve the scholarly quality, methodological rigor, clarity, and contribution of their research.

All manuscripts are evaluated according to the journal's academic and ethical standards, irrespective of the author's institutional affiliation, professional position, nationality, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merits of the research.