Peer-Review Policy

SHSS follows a strict double-blind review policy to ensure a fair assessment. During the review process, the identity of both the authors and reviewers is kept confidential ensuring an impartial review.

A. Selection of Reviewers

The selection of reviewers is an important factor in maintaining the peer-review standard of the journal. Reviewers with a casual approach or who fail to provide sufficient explanation for their decision (positive or negative) are generally not considered. Reviewers are expected to share their thoughts and opinions honestly without being disrespectful. It is anticipated that the reviewers will have to advise the authors on improving their manuscript to bring it up to par. Reviewers' remarks must be instructional and useful in arriving at a fair and unbiased decision.
Review requests are sent to peers qualified to assess the manuscript about the relevance of their theoretical, methodological, and thematic expertise. A decision on the manuscript generally may be expected within two months of submission; however, delays in getting reviews may prolong this process. Manuscripts are electronically sent for review, and all correspondence is made through e-mail.
Although the peer review process is accelerated by electronic communication, high-quality, peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to SHSS.
Reviewers are asked to submit their assessment within a maximum of four weeks. The following broad-stoke criteria are used to ask reviewers to score a manuscript's quality:

· Does the manuscript fall within the journal’s scope or theme (in case of special issues)?

· Is the manuscript an original piece of work?

· Is the language of the manuscript in good shape?

· The manuscript does not exceed the prescribed word limit

· Manuscript is well-structured

· Are the theoretical framework/conceptual model distinguishable?

· The problem addressed in the manuscript is understandable and has scientific /societal relevance

· The problem stated is likely to result in new knowledge

· The theory referred to results in a clear and appropriate conceptual framework

· The sample selection strategy and data collection methods are appropriate

· The analysis seems to be carried out in an appropriate way

· The results are presented in a clear and comprehensive manner

· The authors place their findings in the broader literature

· The conclusion emerges from the analysis

It is advised that a negative review must also explain the weak points of a manuscript so that the author(s) can understand the grounds for the negative response and he/she can improve the manuscript based on the reviewer’s observations. It is expected that the author(s) should also not confuse clear-cut observations of reviewers with unfair criticism. The editor is hesitant to disregard the reviewers' recommendations, especially about technical matters. Hence, the author(s) must adhere to the reviewers' suggestions.
For individual submissions, the Editor makes an initial appraisal of each manuscript. If the manuscript seems potentially suitable for the journal, the manuscript undergoes a review process. Once the review process has been completed, the editor, if required, conveys the revision of the manuscript to the author.
After completion of the review process, authors will be issued editorial advice. Also, in such cases, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision.
Once all manuscripts are confirmed for publication, the draft manuscript is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for the decision.
The decision (acceptance/ rejection) of the Editor-in-Chief is conveyed to the author by the Publication Officer and an undertaking from the author is sought.
If approved for the opportunity to revise a manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments, authors are requested to resubmit their revisions within a stipulated time after receiving the communication with the editorial decision. The authors are expected to provide an annotated explanation of their responses to the reviewers' concerns.
At least three independent evaluations are conducted in the event of any discrepancy. To make a final editorial decision in the event of a major disagreement, the editor consults the Editor-in-Chief.

B. Communications with authors
Authors will receive thoughtful and helpful criticism regarding the decisions made in their manuscript and be asked to make revisions if so suggested by the reviewer(s).

C. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The confidentiality of participants in the review process is not disclosed.

D. Peer-Review Mechanism
The steps involved in the peer-review process are given below. It will pass through the following stages:

First Screening: All the submitted manuscripts will be checked to assess that the:

· The submitted manuscript is prepared appropriately and falls within the purview of the journal

· The author has followed the manuscript preparation guidelines

· References are correctly cited (incomplete, incorrect, or vague/ambiguous references may lead to desk rejection)

· Language and grammar are correct

· The submitted article has been checked by the author for plagiarism (a report of the same may be attached for the reference of the editor)

Manuscripts that will not adhere to the Author’s Guidelines will be returned to the author(s) for modification and resubmission.
Manuscripts lacking originality, serious scientific or academic flaws, or not prepared as per journal instructions will be rejected without a formal peer review.
Only those manuscripts that have not been published earlier or are not under consideration for publication by any other research journal are acceptable.
Second Screening: The manuscripts selected during initial screening will undergo plagiarism check and found suitable will pass through a rigorous double-blind peer review process, where a team of experts from diverse disciplines will evaluate each manuscript to ensure that it meets the quality standards and publication guidelines. A specific manuscript review format has been evolved for this purpose.
The reviewer’s report is considered while making the final decision on a submitted manuscript. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the Chief Editor will make the final decision in consultation with the editor(s) to arrive at an appropriate decision. The author (s) must respond to the reviewer’s comment and submit a point-wise explanation for the reviewer’s comments/ suggestions.

E. General Guidelines for Peer-Review Process

· SHSS strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any kind of plagiarised work.

· The journal rigorously peer-reviews all submissions and publishes manuscripts that are judged to be scientifically/ academically sound.

· While commenting on the suitability and technical standards of the methodology adopted, sufficient details of the methodological framework/ conceptual/ theoretical framework must be given so that the researcher referring to the manuscript can understand and use the same for his/ her study.

· Author(s) must provide relevant and current references during discussion. Discussion and conclusions must be based on facts and figures. If required, appropriate statistical analyses must be included to substantiate the information. The conclusion must not be biased and must be based on the data, presented in the manuscript.

· Author(s) must cite relevant and adequate references