Policy Document

ACADEMIA International Journal for Social Sciences (AIJSS) is a Pakistan based friendly online space where researchers can easily share their important research papers. Our detailed policy and services are as follows:

OUR SERVICES:
1. Research Paper Portal: Our platform offers a dedicated portal where researchers can effortlessly upload and share their research papers, making it accessible to a global audience.

2. Peer Evaluation: Our skilled team of professors and supervisors provide thorough assessments to enhance the quality of your work.
3. Publication Guidance: We guide researchers through the publication process, offering support in submitting research to journals, conferences, and other academic outlets.
4. Editing and Proofreading: Our expert editors ensure that research papers are free from errors, enhancing readability and overall quality.
5. Collaboration Opportunities: Academia fosters collaboration by connecting researchers with similar interests, promoting meaningful dialogues, and creating opportunities for joint projects.
6. Interactive Presentations: Move beyond traditional papers with our multimedia support, enabling researchers to create engaging, interactive presentations to accompany your research.
7. Access to a Global Network: We provide access to a vast network of scholars, enabling research to reach audiences worldwide, expanding your academic influence.
8. Ethical Publishing: We uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, ensuring that all research shared on our platform adheres to ethical publishing practices.
9. Expert Consultation: Academia offers expert consultation services, allowing researchers to engage with seasoned professionals for guidance on research projects, enhancing the quality of work.

 Reviewer Guidelines:

Following are the guidelines and steps for reviewer to review the article:

1. Acknowledge to survey the article by transferring your Mark and Stamp in delicate on the primary page.
2. Download the Article document FIRST.
3. Peruse the Commentator's rules on the Subsequent page
4. Finish up the survey structure
5. Submit

Important Note for the Reviewers:

1. Academia issues "Certificates of Affirmation" to the commentators who keep a 5 Stars Analyst Rank for One Year.
2. Academia pays the reviewers' according to the quality kept up with by the analyst at 5 Star Audit Rank, made sense of underneath.
3. Academia additionally gives the office of showing great remarks by the Authors for the analysts on the site with Just the Distinguishing proof Code of the reviewers.
4. Academia names just those researchers who hold a base PhD degree in unambiguous areas of examination as a reviewer.
5. Academia lean towards just Partner/Full Teachers as reviewers.
6. Academia applied the quality survey standard of a 5-star positioning among reviewers (please guarantee your position ought to be at 5 if not Academia won't send you further tasks for review)

5 Star Quality Review Policy for the Reviewers:

• Single Star = Filling of Review Structure Form solely after going through the document.
• Two Stars = Review + "Ordinary Remarks for the Editors and Authors"
• Three Stars = Review + "Consistent and Exhaustive Remarks for the Editors and Authors"
• Four Stars = Review + "Consistent and Exhaustive Remarks for the Editors and Authors" + Amendment remarks on required lines/passages in the 'Article Document' for the author(s)
• Five Stars = Review + "Sensible and Careful Remarks for the Supervisor" + Variety Plan Application + Full and Thorough Revision/Upgradation Remarks on required lines/sections in the MS Word Article Record for the author(s) + Language structure Rectification Remarks in the Article

Payments for the Reviewers:

1 Star = PKR. 1000 (or $ 4 for out-of-Pakistan reviewers)

2 Star - PKR. 2000 (or $ 7 for out-of-Pakistan reviewers)

3 Star - PKR. 3000 (or $ 11 for out-of-Pakistan reviewers)

4 Star - PKR. 4000 (or $ 14 for out-of-Pakistan reviewers)

5 Star - PKR. 5000 (or $ 18 for out-of-Pakistan reviewers)

AIJSS collects a nominal fee for the Reviewers' "Certificates of Affirmation".

Principled Guidelines for the Reviewers:

A review of the original copy by reviewers isn't just a fundamental part of formal academic commitment but at the same time is a major move toward the distribution cycle as it helps the editor in publication direction. It additionally permits the author(s) to work on their original copy through publication interchanges. Researchers tolerating to survey an examination paper have a moral obligation to expertly finish this task. The quality, believability, and notoriety of a diary likewise rely upon the companion survey process. The companion survey process relies upon the trust and requests that a commentator should satisfy morally. These experts are the energy arm of the survey cycle, however they might be playing out this occupation with next to no conventional preparation. As a result, they might be (particularly youthful experts) ignorant about their moral commitments. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan needs to list down 'Moral Rules for Reviewers' so all analysts offer their significant types of assistance in a normalized way.

Correctness and Promptness

The Reviewers ought to:

• Illuminate the Editor, in the event that they don't have the subject mastery expected to do the audit and s/he ought to illuminate the Editor following getting a solicitation.
• Be dependable to act expeditiously and present the audit report on time.
• Promptly educate the Editor regarding any potential deferrals and propose one more date of accommodation for a survey report, and
• Not superfluously postpone the audit cycle, either by delayed defer in accommodation of their survey or by mentioning pointless extra information/data from the Editor or author(s).

Principles of Objectivity

• The reviews ought to be dispassionately completed with a thought of high intellectual, insightful, and logical principles.
• All decisions ought to be carefully settled and kept up with to guarantee the full understanding of the analyst's remarks by the editors and the author(s).
• Mutually reviewers and author(s) in rejoinder ought to stay away from unsupported affirmations,
• The reviewer may reasonably censure a composition however it would be improper to turn to individual analysis of the author(s), and
• The reviewers ought to guarantee that their choice is simply founded on the nature of the exploration paper and not affected, either emphatically or adversely, by any private, monetary, or other clashing contemplations or by scholarly inclination.

Revelation and Clash of Interest

• A reviewer shouldn't, for his/her research, utilize unpublished material unveiled in a submitted composition, without the endorsement of the Editor.
• The information remembered for the examination paper is private and the commentator will not be permitted to involve it for his/her review,
•  A reviewer should proclaim any possibly clashing interests (for example individual, monetary, scholarly, proficient, political, or strict). In such a circumstance, s/he will be expected to follow the diary's approaches.
•  A reviewer ought to be sufficiently straightforward to pronounce irreconcilable situations, if, the exploration paper under survey is equivalent to his/her by and by directed study.
• Assuming the analyst feels unfit to isolate his/her predisposition, s/he ought to quickly return the composition to the Editor without audit, and legitimize to him/her the circumstance.

Privacy

• Reviewers ought to consider the examination paper as a private report and should not examine its substance on any stage besides in situations where proficient guidance is being looked for with the approval of the Editors, and
• Reviewers are expertly and morally bound not to reveal the subtleties of any examination paper before its distribution without the earlier endorsement of the Editor.

Moral Considerations

• Assuming the reviewer supposes that the exploration paper is practically equivalent to another person's work, s/he will morally illuminate the Editor and give its reference as a kind of perspective.
• Assuming the reviewer supposes that the outcomes in the exploration paper are false/unreasonable/counterfeit, s/he will impart it to the Editor.
• Assuming there has been a sign of disregarding moral standards in the treatment of people (for example kids, females, needy individuals, incapacitated, old, and so forth), then, at that point, this ought to be recognized to the Editor.
• On the off chance that the examination paper depends on any past exploration study or is an imitation of a previous work or the work is copied for example the creator has not recognized/referred to others' work fittingly, then this ought to be brought to the Editor's information.

Uniqueness

For assessing innovation, the reviewers ought to think about the accompanying components:

■               Does the exploration paper add to existing information?

■               Are the exploration questions and additionally speculations in accordance with the target of the research work?

Formation

In the event that the design and arrangement of the paper are not as per the recommended variant, the reviewers ought to talk about it with the Editor or ought to remember this perception for their review report. Then again, assuming the examination paper is especially elegantly composed, the analyst might disregard the designing issues. At different times, the reviewers might recommend rebuilding the paper before distribution. The accompanying components ought to be thoroughly assessed:         

■         Assuming there is a difficult issue with language or demeanor and the reviewer gets the feeling that the examination paper doesn't satisfy phonetic prerequisites and perusers would confront challenges perusing and fathoming the paper. The reviewer ought to keep this lack in his/her report and recommend the editor make the appropriate altering. Such a circumstance might emerge when the author(s)' local language isn't English.

■         Whether the information introduced in the paper is unique or imitated from recently directed or distributed work. The papers which reflect creativity ought to be given inclination for distribution.

■         The clearness of delineations including photos, models, diagrams, pictures, and figures is crucial for note. In the event that there is duplication, it ought to be accounted for in the audit report. Also, depictions gave in the "Results" segment ought to relate with the information introduced in tables/figures, while perhaps not then it ought to be recorded in the survey report.

■         Fundamentally survey the measurable examination of the information. Likewise, to really take a look at the reasoning and propriety of the particular investigation.

■         The reviewers ought to peruse the "Philosophy" area exhaustively and ensure that the author(s) has exhibited a comprehension of the methods being utilized and introduced in the original copy.

■         The connection between "Information, Discoveries, and Conversation" requires an exhaustive assessment completely. Pointless guesses or unwarranted ends that are not in view of the introduced information are not OK.

■         Further inquiries to be tended to are whether: the association of the exploration paper is proper or veers off from the norm or endorsed design.

■         Does the author(s) keep the rules endorsed by the diary for the readiness and accommodation of the original copy?

■         Is the research paper liberated from typographical mistakes?  

Authors are firmly encouraged to set up the composition according to the accompanying rules if not it will return to you and defer the distribution.

During the accommodation cycle, authors should guarantee their accommodation complies to the accompanying rules:

• The accommodation shouldn't have been recently distributed or viable by another diary, except if made sense of in the "Remarks to the Editor" segment.
• The accommodation document should be in OpenOffice or Microsoft Word design.
• The article ought to incorporate the accompanying segments: Title, Dynamic, Watchwords, Presentation, Writing Audit, Approach, Investigation and Conversation, and End.
• The composition ought to be written in English, with the theoretical restricted to 300 words, and the general text ought to go from 5,000 to 10,000 words, including all components like catalog and tables.
• If submitting to a friend explored segment of the diary, the guidelines for guaranteeing a visually impaired survey should be followed.
• The text and collection of article ought to be according to the joined diary design as underneath. Representations, figures, and tables ought to be suitably positioned inside the message following APA style.
• Inability to follow these rules might bring about the arrival of the accommodation.

Script and length of compositions.

Builds and factors are recognized in words, not shortenings.

In light of the particular rules, here is a more exact outline of the substance and length necessities for compositions:

Length: Original copies ought to be limited to around 5000 to 10000 words, including all segments like the theoretical, primary text, references, and any indices.

Title and Author Data: The main page ought to incorporate the title of the composition, the author's name, affiliations, and contact.

Summary: The theoretical ought to be something like 500 words and ought to give a rundown of the whole paper, in addition to the ends. It ought to likewise incorporate a rundown of three to five catchphrases reasonable for ordering and abstracting administrations.

References: References ought to follow a uniform style all through the composition. Reference the board programming EndNote can be utilized to oversee references.

Plagiarism Breaking point: The composition shouldn't surpass a copyright infringement cutoff of 15%, and every individual source ought to be under 4%.

Formatting: The last organizing of the original copy will be finished by a group from the International Journalism.

Terms and Conditions: 

1. Submission Formatting: All research paper submissions must adhere to the specified formatting guidelines, including citation styles, headings, and overall structure, as outlined in our submission guidelines.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors are required to submit original work. Plagiarism, in any form, is strictly prohibited. Proper citations and references are essential to avoid academic misconduct.
3. Peer Review: Submitted research papers will undergo a rigorous peer review process conducted by experts in the respective field. The decision of the reviewers is final and binding.
4. Copyright and Licensing: Authors grant Academia the right to publish, distribute, and archive their research papers while retaining the copyright to their work. Specific licensing terms may apply based on the journal's policies.
5. Withdrawal and Retraction: Research papers can be withdrawn or retracted only under exceptional circumstances and with the approval of the editorial board. The reasons for withdrawal or retraction will be thoroughly assessed.
6. Conflict of Interest: Authors are expected to declare any potential conflicts of interest related to their research. This ensures transparency and ethical research practices.
7. Privacy and Data Protection: Academia respects the privacy of all users. Personal information provided during registration and submission will be protected in accordance with applicable data protection laws.
8. User Conduct: All users, including authors, reviewers, and readers, are expected to conduct themselves in a professional and respectful manner within the Research Journal Online community. Harassment, hate speech, or any form of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
9. Accessibility: Academia is committed to ensuring accessibility for all users. We strive to make our platform usable and accessible for individuals with disabilities, in accordance with relevant accessibility standards and regulations.
10. Modification of Terms: Academia reserves the right to modify these terms and conditions at any time. Users will be notified of any changes, and it is the responsibility of users to review and accept the updated terms if they continue to use the platform.

By using Academia, you acknowledge and agree to abide by these terms and conditions. It is essential to familiarize with these terms to ensure a positive and productive experience within our academic community.