Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research – MIYR (IJSSHR-MIYR)

ISSNp: 2788-9092 ISSNe: 2788-9106

1. Overview

The International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research – MIYR (IJSSHR-MIYR) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to all submitted manuscripts in order to ensure academic integrity, fairness, and high scholarly quality.

The identities of both authors and reviewers are fully anonymized throughout the review process to maintain objectivity and prevent conflicts of interest.

2. Initial Editorial Evaluation

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening to assess:

  • Compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines
  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Basic academic quality and ethical standards

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be:

  • Returned to authors for technical revision, or
  • Desk rejected if deemed out of scope or unsuitable for further review.

3. Double-Blind Review Requirements

For Authors

Authors must ensure complete anonymization of their manuscripts:

  • Names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and any identifying information must be removed from the manuscript file and document metadata (e.g., Microsoft Word properties).
  • Author information must be entered only in the OJS submission metadata fields.
  • In references or self-citations, authors should use “Author” and year instead of personal or institutional identifiers.
  • Failure to anonymize manuscripts may result in review delays or rejection.

For Reviewers

  • Review reports must not contain any information that could reveal the reviewer’s identity.
  • Reviewers are assigned independently by the editorial office.
  • Authors are not permitted to recommend or suggest reviewers.

4. Review Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and academic contribution
  • Relevance to theory and practice
  • Significance of the research topic
  • Logical structure and analytical rigor
  • Methodological appropriateness and data analysis
  • Interpretation and validity of findings
  • Potential impact on education, policy, industry, or society
  • Clarity, accuracy, and professionalism of writing

5. Editorial Decision-Making

  • Reviewers submit detailed evaluation reports and recommendations within the assigned timeframe.
  • Based on these reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject
  • Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board members are handled by alternative editors to avoid conflicts of interest.

6. Review Timeline

  • The average time from submission to final editorial decision is approximately 7–8 weeks.
  • The reviewer evaluation period typically lasts around 4 weeks.
  • The journal aims to ensure a timely review process without compromising academic quality.

7. Peer Review Workflow

  1. Online Submission
    Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.
  2. Initial Editorial Screening
    The editorial office checks the manuscript for scope, formatting, and ethical compliance.
  3. Plagiarism Screening
    Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software.
  4. Double-Blind Peer Review
    Eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers.
  5. Editorial Decision
    Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:
    Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.
  6. Revision
    Authors submit a revised manuscript together with a response to reviewers.
  7. Final Acceptance
    Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading.
  8. Publication
    The final article is published online and assigned a DOI.

8. Publication Ethics and Plagiarism

  • Authors, reviewers, and editors must adhere to principles of academic honesty, transparency, and confidentiality.
  • All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate) prior to or during peer review.
  • Manuscripts containing plagiarism, redundant publication, or unethical research practices may be rejected.
  • In serious cases, authors may be restricted from future submissions.
  • The journal follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines in handling ethical issues.

9. Manuscript Withdrawal Policy

  • Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before peer review begins by submitting a written request to the editorial office.
  • Manuscripts under review or after review completion cannot be withdrawn without valid justification, as editorial and reviewer resources have already been committed.
  • Withdrawal requests must be submitted by the corresponding author via email and must include: Manuscript title, Corresponding author’s name, Reason for withdrawal
  • Withdrawal requests related to authorship disputes, data ownership conflicts, or institutional disagreements will not be considered.

The editorial office will confirm the withdrawal after notifying all listed authors.