Peer Review Process

Asian Review of Social Sciences (ARSS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process designed to support the quality, validity, originality, relevance and integrity of the scholarly work it publishes. In this model, reviewers do not receive author identities, and authors do not receive reviewer identities. The peer-review process operates alongside the journal’s Aims and Scope, Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement and related editorial policies.

Every submission first undergoes editorial screening. Manuscripts that are considered suitable for external evaluation are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewer reports provide expert advice to the editor; however, the final decision to accept, request revision or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor, taking account of scholarly merit, reviewer comments, ethical requirements and relevance to ARSS.

ARSS does not promise acceptance or an unusually short review period. The time required for review can vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions and whether additional specialist assessment is needed. The journal’s approach is consistent with transparency principles described by DOAJ and ethical guidance for peer reviewers issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Objectives of Peer Review

Evaluate the originality, scholarly significance, methodological soundness, clarity and relevance of submitted work.
Provide constructive and evidence-based comments that can help authors improve the strength and presentation of their manuscripts.
Promote impartial assessment by limiting the influence of author identity, institutional affiliation, nationality or geographic location.
Identify ethical, reporting, citation, data, integrity or methodological issues that may require clarification or further action.
Support fair, independent and confidential editorial decision-making.

2.1 Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscript and the required supporting files through the ARSS submission system. Before submission, authors should follow the Author Guidelines and ensure that identifying information is removed from the anonymised manuscript wherever this is required for double-blind review.

2.2 Administrative and Initial Editorial Screening

Before external review, the editorial office and an editor conduct an initial assessment. This screening may consider alignment with the Aims and Scope, completeness of files and declarations, basic scholarly quality, originality and similarity concerns, ethical approval and informed consent where relevant, conflicts of interest, funding information, data-availability statements, AI-related disclosures and compliance with the journal’s Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement.

A manuscript may be returned to the author for completion or clarification, or it may be declined during editorial screening, when it falls outside the journal’s scope, does not satisfy basic scholarly or ethical requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for external peer review.

2.3 Reviewer Selection and Independence

For manuscripts that proceed to external review, the editor normally invites at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. Selection takes into account scholarly competence, relevant research experience, publication record and the reviewer’s ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers are expected to disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest and to decline an assignment when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Information about the journal’s editorial leadership is available on the Editorial Board page.

2.4 External Review

Reviewers assess the anonymised manuscript independently. The review normally considers the following points:

Originality and contribution to social science knowledge.
Relevance to the ARSS scope and intended readership.
Appropriateness, transparency and clarity of the methods or methodology.
Validity, reliability and interpretation of results or findings.
Clarity, organisation and overall quality of scholarly presentation.
Accuracy and appropriateness of tables, figures, references and supporting material.
Compliance with ethical, research-integrity and disclosure requirements.
Whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence presented.

2.5 Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers submit written comments for the editor and, where appropriate, constructive comments for the authors. A recommendation may fall into one of the following categories:

Accept - the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision, subject to final editorial checks.
Minor Revision - limited changes, corrections or clarifications are required before a final decision.
Major Revision - substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject - the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

A manuscript may require more than one revision cycle. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not determine it automatically.

2.6 Editorial Decision

The handling editor considers the manuscript, the reviewer reports and relevant ethical or integrity issues before reaching an editorial recommendation or decision. When reviewer reports differ materially, the editor may request clarification, invite another independent reviewer or make a reasoned editorial judgement based on the complete record. Authors are informed of the decision together with appropriate reasons and reviewer comments where relevant.

2.7 Revision and Re-Review

Authors who are invited to revise a manuscript should respond systematically to reviewer and editor comments and clearly identify the substantive changes made. Depending on the extent of the revision and the issues raised, a revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, sent for further specialist review or assessed editorially.

2.8 Final Decision and Production

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor makes the final editorial decision. Acceptance remains subject to satisfactory completion of editorial, ethical, technical and production requirements. After acceptance, the article proceeds through copyediting, formatting, proofing and publication in accordance with the Open Access Policy and Copyright & Licensing Policy. Authors should also review the current Article Processing Charges & Waivers page; payment or waiver status is separate from editorial assessment and peer-review decisions.

3. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and other unpublished information are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share manuscript material without appropriate permission, contact authors directly about the review, or use unpublished information for personal, professional or competitive advantage. When AI-assisted tools are relevant to editorial or review activities, users must also observe the confidentiality requirements described in the ARSS Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose relationships or interests that could affect, or could reasonably appear to affect, impartiality. A reviewer should decline a conflicted assignment. An editor with a relevant conflict should recuse themselves from handling or deciding the manuscript and transfer responsibility to another qualified editor where necessary.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Accept review assignments only when the manuscript falls within the reviewer’s expertise and the review can be completed responsibly.
Provide an objective, respectful, evidence-based and constructive assessment, avoiding personal criticism of the authors.
Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, review report and editorial process.
Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data or image manipulation, fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation or other integrity concerns confidentially to the editor.
Avoid irrelevant citation requests or requests made primarily to increase citation counts or metrics.
Do not use unpublished content obtained through peer review for personal research or other advantage.
Disclose conflicts of interest promptly and decline the review when independence could be compromised.

6. Editorial Responsibilities and Independence

Editors are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers, managing conflicts of interest, protecting confidentiality, evaluating reviewer reports and making fair decisions based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance and relevance to ARSS. Editorial decisions remain independent of Article Processing Charges, waiver or discount status, advertising, sponsorship, ownership or marketing considerations. ARSS describes its financial-support model and separation of commercial activity from editorial decisions in the Revenue Sources Statement, Advertising Policy and Direct Marketing Policy.

7. Ethical Concerns, Data Integrity and Research Misconduct

Reviewers and editors should report concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation or other research-integrity problems. ARSS may request supporting data or documentation when this is necessary to assess the concern and may act under its Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement and Post-Publication and Accountability Policy.

8. Special Issues and Invited Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted to special issues or article collections, as well as invited manuscripts, are subject to the same expectations for editorial independence, conflict management, ethical oversight and peer review as regular submissions unless a transparent exception is stated. Guest editors must not make decisions on manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest. Information about journal collections is available on the Special Issues and Article Collections page.

9. Review Time and Publication Timelines

ARSS seeks to manage peer review efficiently but does not guarantee a fixed review or publication time. The overall timeline can depend on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, editorial checks and production. Where a significant delay occurs, reasonable communication should be provided to authors.

10. Appeals

An author may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a material error affected the review or editorial decision. The appeal should identify the specific issue and include supporting information. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance. Broader procedures relating to ethical concerns and post-publication actions are described in the Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement and Post-Publication and Accountability Policy.

11. Editorial Office

Questions about the peer-review process may be directed to the ARSS editorial office at Centre for Research and Innovation (CRI), 9/865, Maruthi Nagar, Rakkipalayam Post, Coimbatore - 641031, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: editorial@crijournals.org. The journal’s Contact page provides the current contact route.