1. Purpose of Peer Review
Humanities and Social Sciences Letters (HSSL) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer review process. Peer review is a fundamental mechanism for ensuring the quality, originality, validity, and scholarly significance of published research. It supports the advancement of knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and interdisciplinary fields by ensuring that published articles meet internationally recognized academic and ethical standards.
The journal adheres to the principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and promotes integrity, transparency, and accountability throughout the publication process.
2. Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Handling Editor. During this stage, manuscripts are assessed for:
-
Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
-
Originality and scholarly contribution;
-
Compliance with the journal's submission requirements;
-
Methodological and theoretical rigor;
-
Ethical compliance and research integrity;
-
Clarity of language and presentation.
Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's basic requirements may be rejected without external review.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process
Humanities and Social Sciences Letters employs a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Authors are required to remove all identifying information from their manuscripts and supplementary materials before submission. Likewise, reviewers are not provided with information that may reveal the identity or affiliation of the authors.
Following editorial screening, eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide recommendations to assist editors in making publication decisions.
The double-blind review system helps ensure impartiality, objectivity, and fairness while minimizing potential biases related to institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, seniority, or professional reputation.
4. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
-
Originality and novelty of the research;
-
Relevance to the field of humanities and social sciences;
-
Significance and contribution to existing knowledge;
-
Theoretical and conceptual soundness;
-
Appropriateness of research design and methodology;
-
Quality of analysis and interpretation;
-
Clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript;
-
Adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature;
-
Ethical compliance and academic integrity.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that support the improvement of manuscript quality.
5. Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers' reports and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be made:
-
Accept without revision;
-
Accept with minor revisions;
-
Revise and resubmit (major revisions required);
-
Reject.
The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor. In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations, additional reviews may be sought before a final decision is made.
6. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
-
Conduct reviews objectively, fairly, and within the agreed timeframe;
-
Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript information;
-
Identify relevant published work not cited by the authors;
-
Alert editors to potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other forms of research misconduct;
-
Disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality.
Reviewers should not use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage or disclose manuscript contents to third parties.
7. Plagiarism Screening and Originality Verification
The journal is committed to publishing original scholarly work. All manuscripts submitted to HSSL are screened for similarity and potential plagiarism using iThenticate through the Crossref Similarity Check service.
The journal does not accept manuscripts containing:
-
Plagiarism;
-
Self-plagiarism;
-
Redundant or duplicate publication;
-
Fabricated or falsified data;
-
Manipulated citations;
-
Other forms of publication misconduct.
Suspected ethical violations are investigated in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established by COPE.
8. Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence or reasonably be perceived to influence the research, peer review process, or editorial decisions.
Authors are required to provide a conflict of interest statement at the time of submission. Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a significant conflict of interest exists.
9. Research Ethics and Human Participants
Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical standards and institutional requirements.
Where relevant, authors must:
-
Obtain approval from an appropriate ethics committee, institutional review board (IRB), or equivalent body;
-
Clearly report ethical approval information within the manuscript;
-
Obtain informed consent from participants prior to data collection;
-
Protect participant privacy, confidentiality, and dignity.
Editors may request documentation supporting ethical approval and informed consent during the review process.
10. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to HSSL are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and publishers must not disclose manuscript information to anyone outside the peer review and publication process.
Confidential information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal, academic, professional, or financial gain.
11. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.
Complaints relating to peer review, editorial decisions, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, or allegations of misconduct will be handled according to the principles and procedures recommended by COPE.
12. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
Humanities and Social Sciences Letters is dedicated to promoting ethical research and responsible publishing practices. Authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher are expected to uphold the highest standards of honesty, transparency, accountability, and scholarly integrity throughout the publication process.
The journal follows the COPE Core Practices and other internationally recognized ethical guidelines to safeguard the quality and credibility of the scholarly record.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). COPE Core Practices. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Crossref. (2024). Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate. Available at: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 317–328). Singapore: World Scientific.
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103