Peer Review Policy

Overview

GPH-International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure a rigorous and impartial evaluation of all submitted manuscripts. This process upholds the highest academic integrity and quality standards, ensuring that all research published in our journal meets scholarly excellence.

Key Features of the Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Review: Both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.
Reviewer Selection: Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two subject-matter experts.
Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents and are not shared with third parties.
Scope & Suitability Check: Manuscripts that **do not fit** within the journal’s scope will not be reviewed.
Timely Review: Our goal is to **complete the review process efficiently**, ensuring a quick turnaround for authors.

Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to the journal follow these steps:

Initial Screening: The editorial team assesses the manuscript for originality, relevance, and adherence to journal guidelines.
Plagiarism Check: Manuscripts undergo a **plagiarism screening** before entering peer review.
Assignment to Reviewers: Two or more independent experts are selected based on their expertise.
Reviewer Evaluations: Reviewers assess the manuscript’s **methodology, significance, clarity, and originality**.
Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:
- Accept as submitted
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit (major changes required)
- Reject
Author Revisions: If revisions are requested, authors must submit an updated version along with a **response letter** addressing reviewers’ comments.
Final Decision: The revised manuscript is evaluated, and a final decision is made.

Plagiarism & Ethical Compliance

All submissions undergo **plagiarism detection software** to ensure originality. If plagiarism is found:

**Before publication:** The manuscript is **immediately rejected**.
**After publication:** The paper may be **retracted**, and the author’s institution may be notified.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Maintain **confidentiality** and **impartiality**.
Provide **constructive feedback** to help authors improve their work.
Flag any potential **ethical concerns** or **plagiarism**.
Complete reviews **within the given timeframe**.

Editorial Responsibilities

Ensure a **fair and unbiased** review process.
Oversee ethical compliance and **handle misconduct cases**.
Make final publication decisions based on **scientific merit and reviewer feedback**.

Appeal & Revision Process

Authors who **disagree** with a review decision may appeal by providing a **detailed rebuttal** explaining why they believe their manuscript should be reconsidered. Appeals must be based on **scientific reasoning** and will be **reviewed by an independent editor**.