Peer Review Policy

Peer review is a system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research field evaluate submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance to assist editors in determining whether the manuscript should be published in their journal. Peer review is an objective process at the heart of good scientific publishing and is conducted by all reputable scientific journals.

Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining high standards of the Review Policy and all manuscripts are evaluated by reviewers following the procedures outlined below:

Initial manuscript evaluation

Initially, the Editor evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are deemed to be insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, are poorly written, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are assigned to a Deputy Editor, who will select two (or more) reviewers with expertise in the subject matter.

Studies must be scientifically valid; for research articles, this includes having a scientifically sound research question, appropriate methodology and analysis, and following accepted standards in the field of research.

These evaluations assist the Editorial Boards in making publication decisions and provide guidance to authors in strengthening their professional writing. Reviewers enhance the clinical appropriateness and scientific quality of manuscripts by providing objective, insightful, and rigorous critiques of submitted manuscripts.

Type of peer review

The policy employs double-blind review, where both the reviewer and author identities are concealed throughout the review process.

Reviewer selection

Reviewers are matched with manuscripts according to their expertise as much as possible, and our database is continuously updated. The European Archieves of Social Sciences attempts to avoid conflicts of interest by not inviting reviewers from the same institution(s) as the authors and by not inviting two reviewers from the same institution. However, previous relationships or workplaces may not always be apparent. In our invitation to potential reviewers, we ask whether they know or can reasonably guess the identity of the author and to decline to review if they cannot provide an unbiased review.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on whether it is: – Original – Methodologically sound – Follows appropriate ethical guidelines – Clearly presented and supports its findings – Correctly references previous relevant work.

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language editing/revision is not part of the peer review process, although reviewers may suggest revisions if they wish.

An ideal review should address the following questions:

Who would be interested in reading the manuscript and why? What are the main claims of the manuscript and how significant are they? Are the claims novel? Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed? Are there additional experiments or studies that would strengthen the manuscript? Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature? If the manuscript is not acceptable, is the study promising enough to encourage resubmission? If the manuscript is not acceptable but promising, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable? How long does the review process take?

The time required for the review process depends on the response of the reviewers. If reviewer reports are conflicting or if a report is unnecessarily delayed, additional expert opinions will be sought. The editor's decision, typically accompanied by reviewers' comments verbatim and any recommendations made by the reviewers, will be communicated to the authors. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the chief editor for further review, who may request another revision of the manuscript.

Final decision

Reviewers advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.