Peer Review Process

Journal of Religious and Social Studies-JRSS maintains the highest criteria of peer review while increasing the efficiency of the process. All articles published in JRSS undergo full peer review as per the following steps:

Internal/Desk Review

Each paper goes through an internal / desk review by the editorial board to determine whether it is properly formatted and follows the publication ethics. The board members would also consider whether basic protocols of research have been followed in research design/analysis and contribution to the literature. Papers that do not meet the basic requirements are not sent out for external review, after an internal review.

External Review (National & International)

Journal of Religious and Social Studies follows a Triple-blind review process after a paper is screened through the internal review. Authors are requested not to include their personal information in the text of the paper. If the personal information is displayed by the authors, another file is uploaded after the removal of the author’s information and sent to reviewers. Authors/s is further indicated not to post their papers on any website to prevent their identity to the potential reviewers. While reviewers are also expected to refuse if they come to know about the identification of the author(s) of a paper referred to them for peer review. Three reviewers, one local and two international are referred to the article through the online portal of JRSS, ensuring that each article is referred to a reviewer having specialization in the relevant field. A reviewer Proforma duly generated by the Editorial team with OJS/Online Platform is also assigned with each review request which helps the reviewer in the review process. Each reviewer is given a specific timeline for review. If the reviewer fails to comply with the timeline, a reminder is sent. There is no option for authors to suggest reviewers, as per the policy of HEC.  External reviewers generally comment and suggest originality, quality of presentation, research design, data/results/conclusions, the usefulness of the study, and interest in the researcher's community. During an external review, if reviewers find that the research paper has major flaws that cannot be resolved through a major revision, they can recommend declining the paper. After that, the following steps are taken by the Editors: 

  1. All publication decisions are made totally by the journals’ Editors-in-Chief and Editors based on the reviewer's comments and suggestions.
  2. Managing & Associate Editors provide the administrative support that allows JRSS to maintain the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to authors, reviewers, and editors alike.

Peer Review of Referred Papers

Editor of JRSS decides promptly whether to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. In addition, Editor will have the option of seeking additional reviews if a reviewer asks to send them back after accomplishing the suggestions when needed. Authors may be asked for revision as per suggestions of reviewers when Editor decides further review is needed.

The peer-review process/duration can be broadly described as:

S. No.

Steps of Review Process

Estimated Time

1

Submission of paper

After Call for Paper

2

First internal desk review *

3-4 weeks

3

External review (2 reviewers)

4-5 weeks

4

Communication of review reports to authors for minor/major revision

1 week

5

Submission of  the revised paper

1-2 weeks

6

Second internal review (to assess whether reviewers' suggestions have been incorporated satisfactorily)

2-4 weeks

7

Acceptance of a paper for publication (on successful submission of revised paper)

1 week

* Paper is returned to authors if it does not meet the basic criteria.

Post Peer Review Policies

  1. Nearly every published paper goes through at least one revision within a limited time. If the Author fails to resubmit, he may be not allowed for resubmission.
  2. For the best practices of Editorial Services and decisions, the JRSS team allows appeals against any decision made by our reviewers or Team. The appeal may be submitted to Editor at editor@ejrss.com, directly. The matter will be forwarded to some appropriate JRSS Advisory board member who can finally recommend acceptance of the appeal, further review, or upholds the original decision (if any).
  3. It is the basic responsibility of authors to ensure the language quality of the manuscript that must be free from typing, spelling, grammar, and phrasal errors.

Editor Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review process

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. One challenge for editors is to recognize the potential for conflicts of interest and to take appropriate action when biases are likely. The types of conflict of interests are as follow: 

Note

Even if prospective reviewers feel confident that the existence of one or more of these potential conflicts of interest would not intrude upon their objectivity, they should protect the credibility of the review process by avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest and decline to review the manuscript. A reviewer should not take scientific, financial, personal, or other advantages of material available through the privileged communication of peer review, and every effort should be made to avoid even the appearance of taking advantage of information obtained through the review process.