Peer Review Process

Workflow Overview

The overview of the peer review model involves double-blind peer review. The IJSSE employs a Digital Editorial Officer (DEO) to significantly reduce the editorial team's traditional workload. The DEO enhances efficiency by monitoring review progress, updating authors as needed, and serving as a personal administrator to the editor and the editorial board. It also manages the database of potential reviewers and receives all manuscript submissions on behalf of the editor. Upon receiving a submission, the DEO conducts an initial desk review to confirm alignment with the journal’s scope. It then contacts potential reviewers from the database, presenting them with a list of available manuscripts so they may select papers that align with their expertise and interests. A minimum of two independent reviewers per manuscript is required. Once the required number of reviews has been secured, the DEO compiles and forwards them to the editor. At this stage, the editor’s primary responsibility is to evaluate the reviewers’ feedback, identify any overlooked issues, and provide further guidance if needed, rather than conducting a full, independent review. Most manuscripts submitted to IJSSE are either rejected outright or returned to the authors with requests for major or minor revisions. The final decisions made by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated Editor

Editorial Independence and Governance

The editorial decision-making process is fully independent and free from commercial, institutional, or personal influence.

  • The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board have full authority over editorial decisions.
  • Administrative staff, including the Digital Editorial Officer (DEO), facilitate workflow management but do not make editorial decisions.
  • Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigour, relevance, and contribution to international psychological knowledge.
  • Editors and reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when necessary.
  • No financial considerations, including Article Processing Charges (APCs), influence editorial decisions.

Phase 1: Submission and Initial Editorial Screening

The IJSSE maintains a rigorous, transparent, and independent editorial screening process to ensure that only manuscripts meeting international scholarly standards proceed to external peer review. This process safeguards editorial independence, academic integrity, and publication quality in alignment with internationally recognised indexing standards.

1.1 Manuscript submission

The quality control step ensures procedural integrity, ethical compliance, and transparency before editorial assessment. Authors must submit manuscripts through the IJSSE’s official online submission system. All submissions must comply with the IJSSE’s Author guidelines, ethical standards, and publication policies. Authors are required to provide:

  • A complete manuscript prepared according to IJSSE formatting requirements
  • Author declarations, including originality and authorship confirmation
  • Ethical clearance documentation, where applicable
  • Conflict of interest disclosures
  • Confirmation that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere

Submissions that do not meet these requirements will not proceed to editorial evaluation.

1.2 Administrative and technical screening

The Digital Editorial Officer (DEO) conducts an initial administrative and technical review to verify compliance with submission and ethical standards. This screening includes verification of:

Technical compliance

  • Adherence to journal formatting and structural requirements
  • Completeness of manuscript components, including abstract, keywords, references, figures, and tables.

Ethical and documentation compliance

  • Completion of author declarations and ethical approval statements
  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest
  • Confirmation of originality and exclusive submission

Double-blind review integrity

  • Removal of author names, affiliations, and identifying information
  • Removal of identifying metadata within the manuscript file

Manuscripts failing to meet administrative or ethical requirements are returned to authors for correction before editorial review.

1.3 Editorial screening

Following administrative clearance, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor conducts an independent editorial evaluation. This evaluation is based solely on scholarly merit, relevance, and methodological integrity, without influence from authors, sponsors, or external parties. This step demonstrates the IJSSE’s editorial independence and selectivity. Editors evaluate manuscripts using the following criteria:

Scope and relevance

  • Alignment with the IJSSE’s aims, scope, and disciplinary focus
  • Relevance to international psychological scholarship
  • Contribution to global academic discourse rather than purely local interest

Scholarly quality and academic merit

  • Evidence of theoretical grounding and conceptual clarity
  • Methodological appropriateness and basic research validity
  • Logical structure and scholarly coherence

Originality and contribution

  • Evidence of originality, novelty, or meaningful scholarly contribution
  • Avoidance of duplication, redundancy, or minimal incremental contribution

Ethical and academic integrity

  • Compliance with research ethics standards
  • Absence of plagiarism or unethical research practices
  • Adherence to academic integrity principles

Editorial independence safeguard

Editorial decisions at this stage are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editors based solely on academic merit and journal standards.

Editorial decisions are not influenced by:

  • Authors’ institutional affiliation
  • Geographic origin
  • Funding sources
  • Commercial interests
  • Editorial board relationships

This ensures fairness, neutrality, and academic integrity.

Quality control and selectivity function

The quality control purpose step ensures ethical compliance, protects reviewer anonymity, and maintains procedural fairness. The desk review serves as a critical quality filter. Manuscripts that do not meet international scholarly standards are declined prior to external peer review. This ensures that:

  • Reviewer resources are used efficiently
  • Peer review focuses on high-quality submissions
  • The journal maintains strong academic standards
  • Publication quality remains consistent and internationally competitive

Possible editorial decisions at desk review

Following editorial screening, one of the following decisions will be issued:

  1. Desk Rejection

The manuscript is declined without external peer review if it:

  • Falls outside the IJSSE’s scope
  • Lacks sufficient scholarly contribution
  • Demonstrates methodological or theoretical weaknesses
  • Fails to meet academic quality standards
  • Raises ethical concerns

Desk rejection reflects the IJSSE’s commitment to selectivity and quality control.

  1. Request for pre-review revisions

Authors may be invited to revise and resubmit prior to peer review if the manuscript shows potential but requires improvements in:

  • Structure or clarity
  • Theoretical framing
  • Literature engagement
  • Formatting or compliance

Resubmitted manuscripts undergo re-evaluation before progressing further.

  1. Progression to external peer review

Manuscripts that meet editorial quality standards proceed to formal double-blind peer review by independent expert reviewers.

This progression confirms that the manuscript demonstrates:

  • Adequate scholarly quality
  • International relevance
  • Theoretical and methodological credibility
  • Potential contribution to the field

Only a selective proportion of submissions advance to peer review.

Phase 2: External Peer Review

2.1 Reviewer selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise relevant to the manuscript
  • Absence of conflicts of interest
  • Institutional and geographical diversity, where possible

Both internal (editorial board) and external reviewers may be used, provided independence is maintained.

2.2 Double-blind review process

  • Reviewer and author identities remain confidential
  • Reviewers assess manuscripts using the structured IJSSE review template

2.3 Core review criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts using the following five internationally recognised scholarly quality dimensions. These criteria ensure that accepted manuscripts demonstrate originality, theoretical strength, methodological rigor, and meaningful scholarly contribution.

  1. Contribution to International Literature

Contribution to international literature is a quality indicator for strong manuscripts that clearly articulate how their contribution advances international scholarship. It aims to assess whether the manuscript advances global scholarly knowledge rather than addressing only narrow local concerns. Reviewers must evaluate:

Originality and novelty

  • Does the manuscript present new knowledge, insights, models, or empirical findings?
  • Does it move beyond replication of existing studies without clear justification?
  • Does it offer conceptual, theoretical, methodological, or empirical innovation?

International relevance

  • Are the findings meaningful beyond a single country or local setting?
  • Does the manuscript engage with global debates, challenges, or comparative contexts?
  • Are the implications applicable to broader academic, professional, or policy audiences?
  1. Theoretical grounding

Theoretical grounding is a quality indicator for high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate strong theoretical coherence and scholarly positioning. It is intended to ensure that the research is anchored in appropriate, clearly articulated theoretical or conceptual frameworks. Reviewers must evaluate:

Clarity and appropriateness of theory

  • Is a relevant theoretical or conceptual framework clearly identified?
  • Is the theory appropriate for the research question and discipline?
  • Are key concepts clearly defined?

Integration of theory with research design and analysis

  • Does the theory guide the research questions, methodology, and interpretation?
  • Is there precise alignment between theory, data collection, and analysis?
  • Does the study contribute to theory development, refinement, or application?
  1. Citation depth and literature engagement

Citation depth and literature engagement are quality indicators that involve strong manuscripts that demonstrate critical engagement rather than a descriptive listing of sources. Their purposes consist of assessing the manuscript’s engagement with current, relevant, and internationally recognised scholarship. Reviewers must evaluate:

Engagement with recent and international literature

  • Does the manuscript cite relevant and recent literature, especially within the past 5-10 years?
  • Does it include international sources rather than relying solely on local references?
  • Are key scholars, debates, and foundational studies included?

Analytical use of sources

  • Does the manuscript critically analyse and synthesise literature?
  • Does it identify gaps, debates, or unresolved issues?
  • Does the literature review justify the study’s purpose and contribution?
  1. Methodological rigor

Methodological rigor is a quality indicator for high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate methodological clarity, validity, and transparency. It ensures research design, procedures, and analysis meet international scientific standards. Reviewers must evaluate:

Research Design and Transparency

  • Is the research design appropriate for the research questions?
  • Are sampling procedures, participants, instruments, and procedures clearly described?
  • Is the methodology sufficiently detailed to allow replication?

Analytical Validity and Reliability

  • Are data analysis methods appropriate and correctly applied?
  • Are findings supported by sufficient evidence?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?

Ethical Considerations

  • Are ethical standards addressed (consent, confidentiality, approvals where applicable)?
  • Does the research demonstrate integrity and transparency?
  1. Interpretation and scholarly contribution

Interpretation and scholarly contribution are quality indicators for strong manuscripts that demonstrate clear scholarly significance and intellectual contribution. It aims to assess whether findings are meaningfully interpreted and contribute to scholarship, practice, or policy. Reviewers must evaluate:

Interpretation of findings

  • Are findings clearly presented and logically interpreted?
  • Are interpretations supported by data and linked to theory and literature?
  • Does the discussion avoid unsupported claims?

Scholarly contribution and implications

  • Does the manuscript clearly explain its academic contribution?
  • Are implications provided for:
    • Research
    • Professional practice
    • Policy development
    • Theory advancement

Reviewer recommendation categories

Reviewers must provide both:

  1. Qualitative feedback

Constructive comments addressing:

  • Strengths of the manuscript
  • Areas requiring improvement
  • Specific recommendations for revision
  • Overall scholarly value
  1. Structured recommendation

Reviewers should select one of the following:

  1. Accept without revisions
  2. Accept with minor revisions
  3. Accept with major revisions
  4. Revise and resubmit (new review required)
  5. Reject (does not meet scholarly standards)

Phase 3: Editorial Responsibility, Reviewer Recommendations, and Decision Authority

The IJSSE maintains a clear editorial governance structure to ensure independent, fair, and academically rigorous editorial decisions. While reviewers provide expert recommendations, final decision-making authority rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor.

3.1 Reviewer recommendations

Peer reviewers serve in an advisory capacity and provide expert, evidence-based evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept
    The manuscript meets international scholarly standards and is suitable for publication without revision or with only minor editorial corrections.
  • Minor revisions
    The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially affect its methodology, theoretical grounding, or scholarly contribution.
  • Major revisions
    The manuscript has scholarly merit but requires substantial revisions, including strengthening the theoretical integration, clarifying the methods, engaging the literature, and improving the interpretation.
  • Reject
    The manuscript does not meet the IJSSE’s academic standards due to significant methodological weaknesses, insufficient scholarly contribution, ethical concerns, or lack of alignment with the IJSSE’s scope.

3.2 Editorial evaluation and decision authority

The Editor-in-Chief or designated Handling Editor holds full and independent responsibility for editorial decisions. The Editor performs the following functions:

  1. Evaluation of reviewer reports
  • Carefully reviews all referee reports and recommendations
  • Assesses the depth, quality, objectivity, and scholarly validity of reviewer feedback
  • Ensures reviewer comments align with the IJSSE’s core review criteria and international publishing standards
  1. Independent editorial judgment

The Editor makes the final decision based on:

  • Scholarly merit and originality
  • Theoretical and methodological rigor
  • Contribution to international literature
  • Alignment with journal scope and standards
  • Ethical compliance
  • Overall academic quality and integrity

Editorial decisions are not determined solely by reviewer votes but by balanced editorial assessment.

3.3 Resolution of divergent or conflicting reviews

Where reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the Editor may take one or more of the following actions:

  • Appoint a third independent reviewer
  • Seek additional expert consultation
  • Conduct an independent editorial assessment
  • Request clarification from reviewers where necessary

The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority in resolving conflicting evaluations.

3.4 Final editorial decision categories

All editorial decisions are final and based on scholarly merit and journal standards. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor may issue one of the following final decisions:

  1. Accept without revisions
  2. Accept with minor revisions
  3. Accept with major revisions
  4. Revise and resubmit (new peer review required)
  5. Reject

3.5 Editorial accountability and responsibility

Handling Editors act under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief and must adhere to the same editorial standards and ethical responsibilities. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring:

  • Integrity, fairness, and transparency in the peer review process
  • Independent editorial decision-making free from external influence
  • Maintenance of international academic publishing standards
  • Ethical oversight and compliance with research and publication ethics
  • Protection against conflicts of interest

3.6 Editorial independence

Decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, academic rigor, and relevance to the journal. Editorial decisions are made independently of:

  • Authors’ institutional affiliations
  • Geographic origin
  • Funding sources
  • Commercial or organisational interests

Phase 4: Revision and Re-Review Policy

The IJSSE and GAERPSY establish clear procedures for author revisions, editorial verification, and re-review to ensure academic quality, transparency, and scholarly integrity.

4.1 Author revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit the following within the specified revision timeframe:

Required documents

  1. Revised manuscript
  • A clean version of the revised manuscript.
  • A tracked-changes version highlighting all revisions that are recommended or required by the IJSSE.
  • All revisions must be clearly incorporated into the manuscript text.
  1. Response to reviewers' document

The response-to-reviewers document ensures transparency, accountability, and alignment with international scholarly publishing standards. However, authors must provide a detailed, structured response addressing each reviewer and editor comment. This document must include:

  • Each reviewer's comments are presented verbatim
  • A clear description of how the comment was addressed
  • The exact location of revisions, such as page and paragraph numbers,
  • Justification for any comments not accepted, supported by scholarly reasoning

Required Format Example:

Failure to provide a complete and satisfactory response-to-reviewers document may delay editorial decisions or result in rejection.

Required Format Example:

4.2 Verification of revisions and re-review

All revised manuscripts undergo editorial assessment to ensure reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed.

Minor revisions

Minor revisions may include:

  • Clarification of text
  • Minor literature additions
  • Formatting corrections
  • Language improvements

Assessment process:

  • The Handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief typically evaluates minor revisions.
  • External re-review is not usually required unless concerns remain unresolved.

Outcome options:

  • Accept manuscript
  • Request further minor revisions
  • Escalate to external re-review if necessary

Major revisions

Major revisions may include:

  • Significant methodological clarification or correction
  • Expansion of the theoretical framework
  • Substantial literature integration
  • Additional analysis or reinterpretation of findings
  • Structural changes to the manuscript

Assessment process:

  • Major revisions are normally returned to one or more of the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  • This ensures that reviewer concerns have been adequately and appropriately addressed.
  • In some cases, new reviewers may be invited if original reviewers are unavailable.

Reviewer re-evaluation focus:

Reviewers will assess whether:

  • Their concerns were adequately addressed
  • The manuscript meets scholarly quality standards
  • The revisions improve clarity, rigor, and contribution
  • The manuscript now meets publication criteria

Editorial decision following re-review

Based on the revision assessment, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept without further revision
  2. Accept with minor editorial corrections
  3. Request additional minor revisions
  4. Request additional major revisions
  5. Reject the manuscript

Failure to adequately address reviewer comments

The policy ensures integrity, fairness, and academic rigor in the peer review process. A manuscript may be rejected if:

  • Authors fail to respond to reviewer comments adequately
  • Revisions are incomplete or superficial
  • Significant methodological or theoretical concerns remain unresolved
  • The manuscript continues to fall below international scholarly standards

Phase 5: Acceptance and Production, and Publication Process

The IJSSE outlines the procedures followed after a manuscript has successfully passed peer review and editorial evaluation. These processes ensure publishing integrity, transparency, and discoverability.

5.1 Final Acceptance

Once a manuscript satisfies all scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements, the Editor-in-Chief issues an official acceptance decision.

The final acceptance process includes:

  • Formal confirmation that the manuscript has successfully passed peer review
  • Verification of compliance with journal scope, academic quality, and ethical standards
  • Confirmation that all required revisions have been satisfactorily completed
  • Editorial validation of originality and academic integrity

Official acceptance letter

The issue of an official acceptance letter ensures transparency and documentation required for institutional and indexing purposes. The acceptance letter includes:

  • Title of the manuscript
  • Names and affiliations of all authors
  • Date of acceptance
  • Journal name and ISSN
  • Statement confirming peer review completion
  • Expected publication issue or continuous publication timeline

5.2 Copyediting and proofing

All accepted manuscripts undergo professional production processes to ensure clarity, accuracy, and publication quality.

Copyediting

Copyediting does not alter the intellectual content of the manuscript and ensures:

  • Academic clarity, coherence, and readability
  • Consistency with journal style and formatting guidelines
  • Accuracy of references, citations, tables, and figures
  • Verification of author affiliations and metadata
  • Compliance with international academic publishing standards

Layout and typesetting

Manuscripts are formatted into the journal’s official publication layout, including:

  • Article structure standardisation
  • Pagination and formatting
  • Assignment of article identifiers
  • Preparation of metadata for indexing systems

Author proof review

Only minor corrections are permitted at this stage. Substantive changes require editorial approval. Authors receive page proofs to verify accuracy.

Authors are responsible for:

  • Reviewing the proof carefully
  • Correcting typographical or formatting errors
  • Confirming author details, affiliations, and references

Proof correction timeframe: Authors must return corrected proofs within 3-7 working days to ensure the regularity and timeliness of publication.

5.3 Publication and Online Availability

Upon completion of production, articles are published according to the IJSSE’s publication model, such as continuous or issue-based.

Digital publication and DOI assignment

Each article is assigned a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI) through Crossref to ensure permanent accessibility and citation tracking.

DOIs provide:

  • Persistent linking and accessibility
  • Citation tracking and metrics
  • Global discoverability
  • Compliance with international indexing standards

Metadata and indexing preparation

Metadata is structured to support indexing in international databases such as Scopus and other scholarly indexing systems. Published articles include complete metadata to ensure discoverability and indexing. Metadata includes:

  • Article title
  • Author names and ORCID IDs (where available)
  • Author affiliations
  • Abstract and keywords
  • DOI
  • Publication date
  • Article type
  • References

Open access and licensing

Articles are published under an open-access license to ensure global accessibility and knowledge dissemination. Licensing terms are clearly stated on each published article.

Open access ensures:

  • Free and unrestricted access to research
  • Increased citation visibility
  • Global academic dissemination
  • Compliance with international open science standards

5.4 Publishing Regularity and Issue Management

The IJSSE maintains a consistent and transparent publication schedule and commits to:

  • Publishing according to its stated frequency, which is three issues per year
  • Publishing articles promptly after final production
  • Maintaining consistency in volume and issue numbering
  • Avoiding publication delays and irregular release patterns

Publication schedules are publicly available on the journal website.

5.5 Transparency and publication integrity

The IJSPSY ensures transparency throughout the publication process by maintaining:

  • Clear editorial and peer review policies
  • Documented acceptance and publication timelines
  • Publicly accessible author guidelines
  • Ethical publishing standards aligned with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  • Transparent correction, retraction, and erratum procedures where necessary

5.6 Article discoverability and archiving

To ensure long-term accessibility and discoverability, the journal implements the following measures:

  • DOI registration through Crossref
  • Search engine optimisation (SEO-compatible metadata)
  • Online hosting through a secure journal platform (e.g., OJS or equivalent)
  • Permanent archiving and digital preservation
  • Machine-readable metadata for indexing systems