Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Wellbeing (JISSAW) employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. This ensures that all published research meets the highest standards of scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the interdisciplinary fields of social sciences and human wellbeing.

1. The Peer Review Process

Our review process is designed to be transparent, fair, and efficient. It follows these key stages:

  1. Editorial Triage (Initial Check):
    • Scope Check: The editorial team evaluates if the submission aligns with the journal’s focus (e.g., social policy, public health, sports sociology, or educational psychology).
    • Compliance Check: Manuscripts are screened for formatting, APA 7th referencing, and ethical requirements (e.g., IRB approval for human subject research).
    • Initial Decision: Manuscripts lacking originality, rigorous methodology, or adherence to guidelines are rejected at this stage without external review.
  2. Section Editor Assessment:
    • A Section Editor with expertise in the specific subfield (e.g., Behavioral Economics or Sports Management) assesses the study's novelty and methodological soundness.
    • Outcome: The paper is either sent for external review or rejected (desk rejection) if it has fatal flaws.
  3. External Double-Blind Review:
    • Selection: 2–3 independent subject-matter experts are invited to review the manuscript.
    • Anonymity: The process is double-blind; reviewers do not know the authors' identities, and authors do not know the reviewers'.
    • Evaluation: Reviewers assess originality, ethical compliance (COPE standards), and the clarity of data presentation.
  4. Decision-Making:
    • The Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision based on reviewer recommendations: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.
    • Revisions: Authors addressing major revisions may undergo a second round of review.
  5. Production and Publication:
    • Accepted manuscripts are copyedited and formatted. Following author approval of final proofs, articles will be published online under the CC BY 4.0 license and indexed in Crossref.

2. Timelines

We strive for a timely process while maintaining quality:

  • Initial Assessment: 2–3 weeks
  • Peer Review Rounds: 4–6 weeks
  • Submission to Publication: Approximately 12–14 weeks (depending on revision quality).

 

3. Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a critical role in upholding the academic integrity of JISSAW. We ask all reviewers to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

A. Confidentiality & Ethics

  • Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript details (e.g., unpublished survey data or methodologies) as strictly confidential. Do not share or use the content for personal advantage.
  • Conflict of Interest: Immediately disclose any relationship that could compromise impartiality (e.g., prior collaboration with the authors or shared institutional affiliation). If a conflict exists, please decline the invitation.
  • Unbiased Evaluation: Assess manuscripts solely on scholarly merit, without regard to the authors' race, gender, institution, or nationality.

B. Evaluation Criteria

  • Methodological Rigor:
    • Quantitative: Check the validity of statistical analysis and sampling (e.g., is the sample size sufficient for a public health survey?).
    • Qualitative: Assess the transparency of data coding and thematic analysis (e.g., in ethnographic or sociological studies).
  • Originality and Contribution: Does the work advance the field? Avoid recommending papers that merely replicate existing findings without new insights into wellbeing or social behavior.
  • Ethical Compliance: Flag any concerns regarding human participant protection, informed consent, or potential plagiarism.

C. Constructive Feedback

  • Provide specific, actionable critiques. Instead of saying "this is unclear," explain why (e.g., "Clarify the sampling strategy used for the community intervention in Section 3").
  • Maintain a professional and constructive tone. The goal is to help authors improve their work, even if the final recommendation is rejection.