Peer Review Policy

1. Commitment to Quality:

"Policy Journal of Social Science Review" (PJSSR) is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that contributes to the understanding and effective development of social policies. To achieve this goal, PJSSR utilizes a rigorous double-blind peer review process conducted by experts in the relevant fields.

2. Double-Blind Review:

• PJSSR employs a double-blind review process where both the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This helps to ensure that the evaluations are unbiased and based solely on the merits of the submitted work.

3. Selection of Reviewers:

• Reviewers are carefully chosen based on their expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
• PJSSR maintains a database of qualified reviewers and seeks additional expert opinions when necessary.
• Reviewers are expected to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

4. Review Criteria:

• Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
  • Originality and significance of the research: Does the study address a novel and important topic? Does it make a substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge?
  • Methodological rigor and appropriateness: Is the research design sound and appropriate for the research question? Are the data collection and analysis methods clearly described and valid?
  • Clarity, organization, and quality of the presentation: Is the manuscript well-written and easy to understand? Are the arguments presented logically and convincingly?
  • Policy relevance and applicability: Does the research offer meaningful insights and recommendations for social policy development and implementation?

5. Review Process:

• Each manuscript is typically reviewed by two independent reviewers.
• Reviewers are instructed to provide constructive feedback to the authors, while adhering to the principles of fairness, objectivity, and professional courtesy.
• Reviewers submit their reports to the editor, who makes a decision based on the reviewers' recommendations and the overall quality of the manuscript.

6. Author Communication:

• Authors are informed of the decision regarding their manuscript along with the reviewers' comments.
• Authors have the opportunity to revise their manuscript in response to the reviewers' feedback and submit a revised version for reconsideration.
• The editor will facilitate communication between the authors and reviewers if necessary.