Peer Review and Editorial Process Policy

SocioLumen Journal of Social Sciences evaluates all submitted research and review articles through a double-anonymous peer review process. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another. The evaluation process is conducted in accordance with the principles of impartiality, independence, confidentiality, academic competence and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.

1. Preliminary Screening

Every manuscript submitted to the journal is initially examined by the editorial office for technical and formal compliance. At this stage, the following matters are checked:

Compatibility of the manuscript with the journal’s aims and scope
Whether the manuscript falls within one of the article types accepted by the journal
Compliance with the journal’s author guidelines and manuscript template
Removal of all identifying information from the anonymized manuscript file
Availability of ethics committee approval, informed consent and other required permissions
Submission of statements concerning conflicts of interest, funding, author contributions, data availability and the use of artificial intelligence
Compliance with citation standards and publication ethics
Similarity and originality screening
Submission of all required author forms

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal’s technical or ethical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction. Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s aims and scope or that fail to meet its fundamental publication requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.

The preliminary screening is normally expected to be completed within seven days of submission.

2. Editorial Assessment

A manuscript that successfully completes the preliminary screening is evaluated for its academic merit by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor. At this stage, the following aspects of the manuscript are considered:

Originality and contribution to the literature
Clarity of the research question
Adequacy of the theoretical framework
Appropriateness of the research methodology
Academic validity of the findings
Adequacy of the discussion and conclusion sections
Compatibility with the journal’s aims and scope

The editor may send the manuscript for peer review, request preliminary revisions or issue a reasoned editorial rejection. The preliminary screening and initial editorial assessment are normally expected to be completed within a total of fifteen days.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript that successfully passes the editorial assessment is sent to at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors, should not have recently collaborated with them and should have no financial, professional or personal conflict of interest that could influence the evaluation.

Reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations:

Accept as submitted
Minor revision
Major revision
Substantial revision and resubmission for further evaluation
Reject

Reviewers provide scholarly assessments and recommendations; they do not make the final acceptance or rejection decision. Reviewer reports are expected to be reasoned, objective, academically appropriate and constructive.

4. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

When the recommendations of the two reviewers clearly conflict, the editor may:

Evaluate the reports on the basis of their academic reasoning and make a decision;
Request further clarification from the reviewers; or
Send the manuscript to a third independent reviewer with relevant expertise.

The third reviewer’s assessment informs the editor’s decision. However, the final decision is not determined solely by the number of positive or negative recommendations. The academic reasoning presented in the reports and the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript are considered together.

5. Revision Process

Manuscripts requiring revision following editorial or peer-review evaluation are returned to the authors.

A minor revision involves limited amendments that do not alter the fundamental structure of the study. Authors are normally given fifteen days to complete a minor revision. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the editor or returned to the reviewers when considered necessary.

A major revision involves substantial changes to the methodology, theoretical framework, analysis, findings, discussion or overall structure of the manuscript. Authors are normally given thirty days to complete a major revision. As a general principle, manuscripts undergoing major revision are returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

Authors must submit a detailed response-to-reviewers document together with the revised manuscript. This document should address each editorial and reviewer comment individually and explain the revisions made. Where a requested change has not been made, the authors must provide a reasoned academic explanation.

Additional time may be granted upon receipt of a justified request. If the authors do not submit the revised manuscript within the specified period and do not request an extension, the submission may be considered withdrawn.

A request for revision does not constitute a commitment to publish the manuscript. Following the evaluation of the revised version, further revisions may be requested or the manuscript may be rejected.

6. Evaluation Time

Reviewers are normally expected to complete their assessments within three to four weeks. The journal aims to communicate the first substantive decision within an average of six to eight weeks from the initial submission, including preliminary screening, editorial assessment, peer review and decision-making stages.

When revisions and subsequent rounds of evaluation are included, the final decision process may take an average of eight to twelve weeks. These periods are indicative targets rather than guaranteed deadlines. The process may take longer depending on reviewer availability, the manuscript’s field of study, the extent of revisions and the need for additional evaluation. The journal does not guarantee the completion of the evaluation or publication process within a specified period.

7. Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

The Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members and other individuals involved in the journal’s operations may submit manuscripts to the journal. However, such submissions are subject to a special procedure designed to prevent conflicts of interest.

An editor or Editorial Board member who is an author of a submitted manuscript:

Must not participate in the preliminary screening or reviewer-selection process;
Must not have access to reviewer identities or confidential evaluation records;
Must not participate in editorial discussions or the decision-making process;
Must not directly or indirectly make any decision concerning the manuscript.

Such submissions are managed by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the author or, where necessary, by an appointed Guest Editor. When the Editor-in-Chief is an author of the manuscript, the entire evaluation and decision-making process is conducted by an independent editor.

Submissions from editors and Editorial Board members are subject to the same peer-review, ethical and academic standards as all other submissions.

8. Retention of Peer-Review Records

Reviewer reports, editorial decision letters, author responses to reviewers and essential records relating to the evaluation process are retained for at least five years in the OJS system or in secure digital archives, in accordance with confidentiality and personal data protection requirements.

Access to these records is restricted to authorized editorial personnel. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors or unauthorized third parties except where disclosure is legally required or necessary for the investigation of a serious ethical concern.

9. Final Decision

The final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript is made by considering the reviewer reports, the authors’ revisions, the editorial assessment, ethical compliance and the manuscript’s contribution to the journal’s aims and scope.

Reviewers provide academic advice to the editor; the Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for decisions concerning the acceptance, rejection or further evaluation of manuscripts. Where necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may consult the relevant Section Editor or Editorial Board.

When the Editor-in-Chief is an author of the manuscript or otherwise has a conflict of interest, the final decision is made by the independent editor appointed to manage the evaluation process.

Peer Review and Editorial Process Policy