Reviewer Management

Reviewer Management Policy

ACADEMIA International Journal for Social Sciences (AIJSS)

Overview

At AIJSS, an effective and ethical reviewer management system is essential to upholding the journal’s commitment to academic rigor, integrity, and transparency. Our double-blind peer review framework ensures that all submissions are evaluated fairly, constructively, and in a timely manner by qualified experts from diverse disciplines within the social sciences.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

Subject Expertise
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and subject expertise in fields such as Sociology, Political Science, Education, Anthropology, Economics, Law, Psychology, Development Studies, and related areas. Reviewer selection considers:

  • Research and teaching experience

  • Peer-reviewed publication record

  • Familiarity with qualitative and/or quantitative methodologies

Diversity and Representation
AIJSS actively cultivates a diverse reviewer pool across institutions, geographies, genders, and career stages to ensure balanced scholarly perspectives and reduce systemic bias.

Invitation to Review
Reviewers are contacted with a formal invitation that includes:

  • The manuscript abstract

  • Estimated review deadline (typically 2–4 weeks)

  • Conflict of interest disclosure requirements

Invited reviewers may accept or decline based on availability and relevance.

Reviewer Database
Our reviewer pool is regularly updated through:

  • Editorial board nominations

  • Author and peer recommendations

  • Participation in academic conferences and networks

  • Analysis of recent literature and citation trends

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

Double-Blind Review
AIJSS uses a double-blind review process in which:

  • Authors and reviewers remain anonymous

  • Bias is minimized and objectivity is prioritized

Balanced Workload
Editors monitor reviewer activity to ensure fair distribution of assignments and prevent reviewer fatigue, thus maintaining the quality and responsiveness of the peer review process.

Mentorship and Inclusivity
To foster professional development, AIJSS invites both senior scholars and emerging academics, providing guidance where needed to support skill-building and knowledge-sharing in peer review.

3. Reviewer Expectations and Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and scholarly significance

  • Theoretical and conceptual clarity

  • Methodological soundness

  • Appropriateness of analysis and interpretation

  • Relevance to the field of social sciences

  • Ethical considerations and citation integrity

Timeliness
Reviews should be submitted within 2–4 weeks. Extensions may be granted upon request. Repeated delays may lead to reassignment of the manuscript.

Confidentiality
All reviewer activities and manuscript content are confidential. Reviewers must not:

  • Share or discuss the manuscript with others

  • Use unpublished data or findings for personal gain

  • Disclose their involvement without consent from the journal

Ethical Responsibility
Reviewers should notify the editor immediately if they identify:

  • Suspected plagiarism or data manipulation

  • Ethical concerns in study design or reporting

  • Any actual or perceived conflict of interest

4. Communication and Support

Editorial Support
The AIJSS editorial office is available to support reviewers by:

  • Clarifying manuscript expectations or review criteria

  • Offering technical support via the journal’s online system

  • Responding to reviewer concerns or suggestions

Recognition
To acknowledge reviewer contributions, AIJSS:

  • Publishes annual reviewer acknowledgments

  • Provides certificates of recognition upon request

  • Offers editorial board invitations to outstanding reviewers

5. Quality Assurance in Peer Review

Performance Monitoring
Editors assess reviews based on:

  • Depth and relevance of analysis

  • Clarity, tone, and constructiveness

  • Fairness and adherence to deadlines

Low-quality or inappropriate reviews may result in feedback or removal from the reviewer database.

Conflicting Reviews
In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations:

  • A third reviewer may be consulted

  • The Editor-in-Chief may mediate and make the final decision based on balanced judgment

Periodic Review
Reviewer performance is periodically evaluated, and consistently high-performing reviewers are prioritized for future assignments and leadership opportunities.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

Training and Support
AIJSS promotes continuous development through:

  • Reviewer guidance materials

  • Webinars and workshops on peer review ethics and practices

  • Editorial mentorship opportunities for early-career reviewers

Incentives and Acknowledgment
AIJSS is exploring additional reviewer incentives such as:

  • Priority processing for future submissions

  • Discounted publication charges for reviewer-authored manuscripts

  • Access to exclusive editorial content

7. Managing Conflicts and Misconduct

Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts, including:

  • Financial or institutional relationships

  • Recent collaborations with the author(s)

  • Academic or personal rivalries

In such cases, alternate reviewers will be assigned.

Handling Reviewer Misconduct
Examples of misconduct include:

  • Breach of confidentiality

  • Use of manuscript content for personal use

  • Harsh, biased, or unprofessional feedback

Confirmed violations may result in:

  • Removal from the reviewer panel

  • Notification of affiliated institutions

  • Reporting to ethics bodies (e.g., COPE) where necessary

Conclusion

AIJSS’s reviewer management policy is built on professionalism, fairness, and academic integrity. By supporting a diverse and skilled community of peer reviewers, the journal ensures that each manuscript receives a thorough and objective evaluation, reinforcing its role as a platform for impactful, ethically sound, and interdisciplinary social science research.