Peer Review Policies

Statement of Peer Review Policies

The Journal of Asia Social Science Practice (JASSP) employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the academic quality, validity, and relevance of all published material. We believe that an objective and impartial review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. Consequently, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept strictly confidential from one another throughout the entire evaluation process.

All submissions are assessed based on their scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, and contribution to the field of social sciences, regardless of the authors' background or affiliation.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary check to ensure the submission adheres to the journal’s formatting guidelines and scope. At this stage, all manuscripts are also screened for plagiarism using Turnitin. Manuscripts that fail to meet the submission standards, fall outside the scope of the journal, or show high similarity indices will be rejected immediately without being sent for external review (Desk Reject).

2. The Double-Blind Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. JASSP adheres to a strict double-blind policy:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

To facilitate this, authors must ensure their manuscripts are anonymized (e.g., removing names, affiliations, and self-citations that reveal identity) before submission.

3. Reviewer Selection and Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on their specific expertise in the subject matter, recent publication record, and lack of conflicts of interest. They are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Does the work add new knowledge to the field?
  • Methodology: Is the research design appropriate and rigorously applied?
  • Clarity: Is the argument logical and the writing clear?
  • References: Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is accepted without changes.
  • Revisions Required (Minor): The authors must address specific comments; no second round of review is usually needed.
  • Resubmit for Review (Major): Significant changes are required. The revised manuscript will likely undergo a second round of review by the original reviewers.
  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is rejected due to fundamental flaws or lack of contribution.

Summary of the Review Flow

The following table outlines the standard timeline and responsibilities within our peer review workflow:

Stage Action / Responsibility Approx. Time
1. Submission & Check Editor: Checks formatting, scope, and plagiarism (Turnitin).
Result: Move to review OR Desk Reject.		 1 Week
2. Peer Review Reviewers (x2): Independent, double-blind assessment of scientific merit and methodology. Submit reports to Editor. 4 - 8 Weeks
3. Editorial Decision Editor: Synthesizes reports and issues a decision (Accept, Revise, or Reject). 1 - 2 Weeks
4. Author Revision
(If applicable)		 Author: Revises manuscript based on feedback and submits a "Response to Reviewers" letter. 2 - 4 Weeks
5. Final Production Publisher: Copyediting, layout, proofreading, and online publication. 2 Weeks

Note: The timelines provided are estimates and may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.