Peer Review Policy

Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted to TJCSS undergoes an initial editorial screening before peer review.

The editor examines whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal’s aim and scope
  • Addresses a relevant social science subject
  • Meets the author guidelines
  • Presents original academic work
  • Has an appropriate research design
  • Contains adequate ethical declarations
  • Meets basic standards of academic writing
  • Provides complete author and manuscript information
  • Shows evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other misconduct

A manuscript may be rejected during initial screening if it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks academic quality, does not meet ethical requirements, or fails to follow the submission guidelines.

Initial editorial rejection does not require external peer review.

Type of Peer Review

TJCSS follows a double anonymous peer review process. During the review process, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Authors must remove their names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and other identifying information from the manuscript file prepared for review. Author information should be provided separately through the journal’s submission system.

Selection of Reviewers

A manuscript that passes initial screening is normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant knowledge of the manuscript’s subject, theory, or research method.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

  • Subject expertise
  • Research experience
  • Independence
  • Availability
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Ability to provide an objective and constructive assessment

The journal will not appoint a reviewer where a personal, professional, institutional, academic, or financial relationship could reasonably affect the reviewer’s independence.

Authors may suggest or oppose potential reviewers, but the editor is not required to follow these requests. The final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the editor.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aim and scope
  • Originality of the research
  • Importance of the research question
  • Quality of the literature review
  • Suitability of the theoretical or conceptual framework
  • Appropriateness of the research method
  • Accuracy and clarity of the analysis
  • Support for the findings and conclusions
  • Contribution to the social sciences
  • Quality and relevance of references
  • Compliance with research ethics
  • Clarity and organization of the manuscript

Reviewers should provide clear, respectful, evidence based, and constructive comments.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Accept subject to minor revisions
  • Reconsider after major revisions
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the editor after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical requirements, and journal policies.

Acceptance is not guaranteed merely because reviewers recommend publication.

Conflicting Reviewer Reports

If reviewer reports substantially disagree, the editor may:

  • Assess the reports and make an editorial decision
  • Ask the reviewers for clarification
  • Send the manuscript to an additional reviewer
  • Request further revision from the authors

The editor’s decision must be based on academic grounds and the journal’s published policies.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • A revised manuscript
  • A detailed response to every reviewer comment
  • A clear explanation of the changes made
  • Academic justification for any recommendation not followed

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent and nature of the changes.

Requesting a revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • Share the manuscript with another person
  • Use unpublished information for personal benefit
  • Contact the authors directly
  • Disclose review details
  • Retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review
  • Upload confidential manuscripts to public or unauthorized artificial intelligence systems

If a reviewer wishes to involve another researcher in preparing a report, prior permission must be obtained from the editor.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline an invitation or immediately inform the editor if they have a conflict of interest involving:

  • An author
  • The author’s institution
  • The research project
  • A financial interest
  • A personal or professional relationship
  • Direct academic competition
  • Prior involvement with the manuscript

A reviewer who believes that an author’s identity has become apparent should inform the editor.

Submissions from Editors or Board Members

A manuscript submitted by an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or person connected with the journal will not receive preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts will be handled by an independent editor who has no involvement with the author. The submitting editor or board member will not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential review information, or influence the editorial decision.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on academic merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

Decisions are not influenced by the author’s nationality, gender, religion, political opinion, institutional affiliation, academic position, personal relationship, or ability to pay.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that:

  • A material error affected the decision
  • A reviewer misunderstood a major part of the manuscript
  • The stated peer review procedure was not followed
  • The decision involved an undisclosed conflict of interest

An appeal must explain the reasons and provide supporting evidence. Disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient.

The appeal will be considered by the editor or another qualified person who was not involved in the original decision. The decision on an appeal will be final.