Decision-Making Process

Editorial Decision-Making Process

ACADEMIA International Journal for Social Sciences (AIJSS)

At AIJSS, we uphold a rigorous, ethical, and transparent editorial process that ensures the publication of high-quality, peer-reviewed research across the diverse disciplines of the social sciences. Each manuscript undergoes systematic evaluation for scholarly contribution, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s interdisciplinary scope.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Check
Upon submission, the editorial office conducts a technical and administrative screening to verify that the manuscript:

  • Follows formatting guidelines (title page, abstract, keywords, references, tables, and figures)

  • Includes all required author declarations (authorship contributions, conflict of interest, ethical approval, and funding disclosure)

  • Passes plagiarism detection software (Turnitin or equivalent) — manuscripts exceeding 15% similarity may be returned or rejected

Scope and Relevance Review
The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor determines if the manuscript aligns with AIJSS’s aims and scope, and whether it contributes original knowledge or insight in its respective field. Manuscripts falling outside the journal’s disciplinary scope may be desk-rejected without external peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment
Submissions that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with subject expertise. The double-blind peer review process ensures that neither author nor reviewer identities are disclosed.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field of social sciences

  • Theoretical foundation and relevance to current academic discourse

  • Research design, data collection methods, and analysis (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods)

  • Ethical standards and citation practices

  • Clarity, coherence, and structure of the manuscript

Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers typically recommend one of the following outcomes:

✅ Accept as is
✏️ Minor revisions required
???? Major revisions required
❌ Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Review Consolidation
The handling editor reviews all peer reviewer comments and synthesizes feedback to inform the editorial decision. In cases of reviewer disagreement or inconclusive evaluations, a third reviewer or consultation with the Editorial Board may be initiated.

Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision, choosing from:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Reject

All decisions are communicated to the corresponding author via a formal letter, including detailed reviewer comments.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions
Authors are typically granted 2–3 weeks to make corrections. The revised manuscript is reviewed by the handling editor.

Major Revisions
Authors are granted 4–6 weeks for substantial revisions. Depending on the changes made, the revised manuscript may be sent for another round of peer review.

Resubmission After Rejection
In general, rejected manuscripts are not reconsidered. However, in select cases where editorial feedback indicates significant potential, resubmission as a new manuscript may be permitted at the discretion of the editorial board.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification
Authors are notified via email and receive:

  • The final editorial decision

  • Reviewer feedback

  • Additional formatting or compliance instructions (if accepted)

Appeals Process
Appeals must be formally submitted in writing, including a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent panel. The decision of the appeals panel is final.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

Final Submission Package
After acceptance, authors must submit:

  • Final revised manuscript

  • Author bios and institutional affiliations

  • High-resolution tables and figures

  • Signed copyright and licensing agreement

Copyediting and Proofs
Manuscripts undergo professional copyediting for clarity, consistency, and formatting. Authors are provided proofs for final approval before publication.

Online Publication
Articles are published in the next available issue and made openly accessible under the CC BY-NC 4.0 License, ensuring free, non-commercial distribution with proper attribution.

7. Ethical Oversight

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may influence the research or review process.

Research Ethics Compliance
All research involving human participants must include documented ethical clearance and informed consent. Manuscripts lacking ethical approval may be rejected.

Data Integrity and Transparency
AIJSS promotes honest, verifiable scholarship. Any concerns related to data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation are taken seriously and may result in retraction, correction, or institutional notification.

This structured editorial decision-making framework reflects AIJSS's commitment to academic excellence, integrity, and inclusive scholarship across all domains of the social sciences.