SalesianJournal of Humanities and Social Sciences follows a double-blind twin review policy.
SJHSS maintains a Roster of Reviewers and invites interested scholars who meet the criteria to join the roster on a rolling basis.
Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Executive Editor removes all the identification details from the manuscript and makes it ready for a double-blind twin review. The manuscript is then forwarded to one of the reviewers from the Panel chosen according to the goodness of fit of the reviewer’s expertise with the disciplinary topic of the manuscript. If no such reviewer is available on the panel, a suitable reviewer is identified and requested on an ad hoc basis.
SJHSS uses a Peer Review Report Template [downloadable from the journal website https://publications.salesiancollege.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TEMPLATE-FOR-PEER-REVIEW-REPORT.pdf], which requires the Reviewer to rate the quality of the article on nine (9) parameters, viz., introduction literature review, methodology & quality of research, support of thesis &analysis, conclusion, research ethics, language & grammar, Chicago style Manual, and citations& references. [If the reviewer is not familiar with the Chicago style conventions, he/she leaves that section review blank; Chicago Style review will be then done by the in-house editors.] Points are distributed across these 9, with a grand total of 100. An article is accepted for publication only if it scores a minimum of 50 points as grand total. Additionally, the reviewer states briefly the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.
The reviewer makes one of the three recommendations: acceptable/acceptable with further modifications and revisions/ rejected.
Based on the review report, the Executive Editor informs the author of the decision. If a revision is requested, the author is required to re-submit the revised article within a specified deadline. If the revision is minor, the revised article is reviewed by the in-house editors. If the revision is major, the revised article is again sent for a fresh review.
Once the article is accepted, the follow up includes the submission of necessary additional documentation such as all copyright permission documents, author declarations, contact details and bio-note of all authors, etc.
The peer-review process is ordinarily completed within 3 months of receiving the manuscript.
No identifying information of the reviewer or the author is passed on to either of them. The reviewer is required to keep the details of the manuscript and its review confidential, except when a legal requirement demands that they be made known.
