Peer Review Policy

At Journal Social Research (JSR), published by Nexus House Editorial, we uphold a rigorous peer review process designed to ensure the scientific rigor, originality, and ethical compliance of every manuscript. Our evaluation protocol follows internationally recognized best practices to safeguard the integrity and credibility of academic publishing.

  1. Technical Screening

Prior to editorial evaluation, all submitted manuscripts undergo an initial technical screening. This includes:

Similarity Check: All submissions are analyzed using plagiarism-detection software (Plagius). Manuscripts presenting more than 25% similarity are not accepted.

AI-Generated Content Detection: A structural analysis is conducted to identify AI-generated content. Manuscripts exceeding a 25% threshold of detected AI-generated material are rejected.

  1. Preliminary Editorial Assessment (Triage)

Manuscripts that successfully pass the technical screening are reviewed by a member of the Editorial Committee. This preliminary assessment evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, academic quality, methodological soundness, and compliance with formatting guidelines.

Based on this evaluation, the manuscript is either forwarded to the peer review stage or rejected without external review.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts deemed suitable for review are assigned to two independent external experts with relevant subject-matter expertise. The peer review process is conducted under a double-blind model, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

Reviewer reports and recommendations are submitted through the journal’s OJS platform and communicated to the authors. Authors are required to address reviewer comments and implement the requested revisions to improve the quality of the manuscript.

  1. Confidentiality and Transparency

Reviewer identities are strictly confidential and will only be disclosed in exceptional circumstances with explicit editorial authorization and appropriate acknowledgment.

Reviewer suggestions provided by authors are not accepted.

All supplementary materials, including tables, figures, datasets, and appendices, are subject to the same peer review standards as the main manuscript.

  1. Final Editorial Decision

The Editorial Committee makes the final decision regarding publication, taking into account reviewer reports, the quality of revisions, and overall scholarly merit. Possible editorial decisions include:

Publishable: Reviewer suggestions may be optional; editorial recommendations are mandatory.

Publishable with Modifications: Revisions requested by both reviewers and editors are mandatory.

Not Publishable: The manuscript is rejected.

In cases where reviewer opinions diverge significantly, a third independent reviewer will be appointed. If this reviewer recommends “Publishable with Modifications,” the Editorial Committee will determine whether an additional review round is required:

Minor Revisions: Assessed solely by the editorial team.

Major Revisions: Subject to a new round of full peer review.

If a manuscript continues to require major revisions after a second full review round, it will be rejected.

  1. Timeline and Editorial Transparency

To ensure transparency in the editorial process, all published articles include the dates of submission, acceptance, and publication. Authors will be informed promptly of any significant delays and retain the right to withdraw their manuscript at any stage prior to publication.

  1. Ethical Commitment and Confidentiality

Confidentiality is a fundamental principle of the peer review process at Journal Social Research (JSR). Reviewers are strictly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or using manuscript content for personal or professional purposes. Authors can be assured that reviewer identities and evaluations are protected throughout the review process.