WHAT IS PEER REVIEW ?

Peer review is a process by which manuscripts submitted to academic journals are evaluated by experts in the same field as the author/s of the manuscript. Its prime purpose is to provide the editorial board with the information needed to make a fair, evidence-based decision about the manuscript. Typically, the peer review process involves the following steps :

  • Once a manuscript is submitted to the journal, it is screened to ensure that it meets the journal’s standards and scope.
  • If the manuscript passes this initial screening, it is then sent to experts who review the manuscript and provide feedback to the author(s) and the editor.
  • The reviewers’ feedback is then shared with the author(s), who may be asked to revise the manuscript based on the feedback received.
  • Once the author(s) has revised the manuscript, it is considered by the journal for further review. If it meets the requisite norms, it is accepted for publication. If not, it is rejected. In rare cases, it is sent for re-reviewing.

This process of refinement of manuscript by seeking suggestions from experts is Peer Review.

JOURNAL’S PEER REVIEW POLICY

  • Initial Screening : All submissions to the Journal are first checked for suitability and completeness. Unsuitable or incomplete manuscripts are rejected promptly without any further consideration.
  • Formal Review : Manuscripts that meet the basic criteria undergo peer review by at least two independent experts selected by the Editorial Board, for assessing the suitability of publication.
  • Exceptions : In highly specialized or emerging fields, the Editorial Board may decide upon the manuscript’s publication by using only one report, if securing two independent peer reviewers is less feasible.
  • Conflict of Interest : If an Editorial Board member is an author, other members of the Board will oversee the peer review and decision making process.
  • Non-Research Manuscripts : Commentary, opinion pieces, and book reviews undergo peer review by only one independent expert or an editorial board member.
  • Due Diligence : Manuscripts intended for peer review are not sent to recent collaborators or colleagues from the same institution as the authors.
  • Diversity of Peer Reviewers : Social Science Chronicle is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion and hence diversity in demographic representation of peer reviewers is stressed upon. The journal’s editorial board strongly encourages variation in geographical regions, gender identities and ethnic groups, when inviting peer reviewers.
  • Double-Anonymized Peer Review : Social Science Chronicle adopts double-anonymized peer review method wherein identities of neither the author/s nor peer reviewers are disclosed. All engaged parties remain anonymous and unknown to each other.

SELECTION OF PEER REVIEWERS

  • In the publication process of Social Science Chronicle, editorial decisions rely heavily on feedback from peer reviewers. It is convened by the Editorial Board, and is largely dependent on academic suitability, domain expertise, research experience, and absence of any potential conflict of interest.
  • The veracity of reviewers is cross-checked through institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.
  • Academics / researchers, who wish to contribute to the journal’s peer-review process can apply to become reviewers. To qualify for empanelment, they must have at least five peer-reviewed publications in any domain of social science, be able to review at least one manuscript per month. For details – [click here] .

What is solicited in the Review Process ?

In the peer review process, feedback on the following aspects of the submitted manuscript is sought :

  • Does the title of manuscript effectively convey the research theme?
  • Does the abstract align and synchronize with the manuscript’s methodology, findings, results, and conclusions?
  • Has the manuscript appropriately analyzed the previously convened studies and identified the research gaps?
  • Is the adopted methodology backed with justification and elaborated in detail?
  • Does the quality of data (including its presentation) meet acceptable academic standards?
  • Is the data interpretation robust, valid, and reliable?
  • Is there any publication or research misconduct, such as plagiarism, image manipulation, or data falsification in the manuscript?
  • Are the conclusion/s significant, justified, and argued in detail?
  • Are there any validation concerns or flaws?
  • Does the manuscript contain any inappropriate or potentially libelous language?
  • Has the author(s) adhered to the sex and gender in research (SAGER) guidelines?
  • What possible improvements could be made for enhancing the research and the manuscript’s quality?

Based on the report obtained on these parameters from two peer-reviewers, a final decision is made by the editorial board about the fate of any submitted manuscript.

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

When reviewing manuscripts for Social Science Chronicle, peer reviewers are communicated to adhere to the following :

  • Reviews should be objective and free from personal criticism or defamatory comments about the authors.
  • Suggestions and reviews should be expressed clearly, with supporting arguments and references, if possible.
  • Reviewers must declare any potential competing interests and decline to review manuscripts where such interests may arise due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships.
  • Reviewers are expected to respond promptly or inform the managing editor about delays, if any.
  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of materials supplied by the journal and refrain from using unpublished manuscripts or any part of them in their own work.
  • Prior to submitting a peer review report, reviewers must ensure that the report’s tone, courteousness, and professionalism are appropriate.
  • Any concerns related to the peer review process should be brought to the attention of the managing editor of the journal.

Recognition for Reviewing

Social Science Chronicle is committed in recognizing the invaluable service performed by peer reviewers. As a mark of recognition for convening the same :

  • Year-wise list of peer-reviewers (along with other details) shall be curated on the Journal’s website,
  • Certificate for conducting peer-review will be provided, and
  • 50% waiver in APC will be available to them (valid for 1 subsequent year).