Peer Review Policy

The Research Journal of Social Sciences and Policy Review (RJSSPR), published by Research Journals Online (SMC-Private) Limited, follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and impactful research. The journal is committed to maintaining academic integrity, objectivity, and confidentiality throughout the review process.

Review Model

RJSSPR adopts a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that:

  • The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential
  • Manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, originality, and relevance

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field of social sciences and policy studies.

Initial Editorial Screening

Before peer review, all submissions undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess:

  • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements
  • Plagiarism screening (maximum similarity threshold of 19%)

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise in social sciences, public policy, or related disciplines
  • Academic qualifications and research experience
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

The editorial board ensures that reviewers provide unbiased, constructive, and confidential evaluations.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Theoretical and methodological rigor
  • Relevance to current social and policy issues
  • Clarity, organization, and academic quality
  • Validity of data, analysis, and conclusions

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed and constructive feedback to support authors in improving their work.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are generally given 2–4 weeks to complete their evaluations. The editorial office ensures efficient handling of manuscripts and timely communication with authors.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Authors receive a formal decision letter along with anonymized reviewer comments.

Revision Process

Authors are required to:

  • Address all reviewer comments thoroughly
  • Submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe
  • Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer feedback

Revised manuscripts may be sent for additional review if necessary.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

  • All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
  • Reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal or professional benefit
  • Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed immediately

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal, well-justified request to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, independent reviewers.

Commitment to Quality

RJSSPR is dedicated to maintaining a transparent, efficient, and high-quality peer review process that supports scholarly excellence and contributes to the advancement of social sciences and policy research.