Peer Review Process

The Asian Review of Social Sciences (ARSS) uses a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to support the quality, validity, originality, relevance and integrity of the scholarly work it publishes. Under this model, author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. The process operates together with the journal’s Aims and Scope, Author Guidelines, Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement and other editorial policies.

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers provide expert advice; the final decision to accept, request revision or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor on the basis of scholarly merit, reviewer reports, ethical compliance and relevance to ARSS.

ARSS does not guarantee acceptance or an unusually short review period. Review time depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements and the need for additional specialist assessment. This approach is consistent with transparency principles described by DOAJ and ethical reviewer guidance issued by COPE.

1. Objectives of Peer Review

Evaluate originality, scholarly significance, methodological soundness, clarity and relevance.
Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback to help authors strengthen their work.
Promote impartial assessment by reducing the influence of author identity, affiliation, nationality or geographical location.
Identify ethical, integrity, reporting, citation, data or methodological concerns requiring clarification.
Support fair and independent editorial decision-making while protecting confidentiality.

2.1 Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts and supporting files through the ARSS submission system. Authors must follow the Author Guidelines and remove identifying information from the anonymised manuscript where required for double-blind review.

2.2 Administrative and Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial office and an editor assess each submission before external review. Screening may include alignment with the Aims and Scope, completeness of files and declarations, basic scholarly quality, originality and similarity concerns, ethical approval and consent where applicable, conflicts of interest, funding, data availability, AI disclosures, and compliance with the Publication Ethics statement.

A manuscript may be returned for completion or clarification, or declined at the editorial stage, if it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet basic scholarly or ethical requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for external review.

2.3 Reviewer Selection and Independence

For manuscripts proceeding to external review, the editor normally invites at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewer selection is based on scholarly competence, research experience, publication record and ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

2.4 External Review

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

2.5 Reviewer Recommendations

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

More than one round of revision may be required. Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, the editorial decision.

2.6 Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates the reviewer reports, the manuscript and relevant ethical considerations. Where reports conflict materially, the editor may seek clarification, invite an additional reviewer or make an editorial judgement based on the record. Decisions are communicated with appropriate reasons and reviewer comments where suitable.

2.7 Revision and Re-Review

Authors asked to revise should respond systematically to reviewer and editor comments and identify substantive changes. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed editorially depending on the extent of revision and the issues raised.

2.8 Final Decision and Production

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor makes the final decision. Acceptance is conditional on satisfactory completion of editorial, ethical, technical and production requirements. After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, formatting, proofing and publication under the journal’s Open Access Policy and Copyright & Licensing Policy.

3. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and unpublished information are confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share manuscript material, contact authors directly, or use unpublished information for personal, professional or competitive advantage.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose conflicts that could affect or reasonably appear to affect impartiality. Reviewers should decline conflicted assignments; editors should recuse themselves and transfer handling to another qualified editor where necessary.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should accept assignments only within their expertise, provide objective and respectful assessments, protect confidentiality, report suspected misconduct, avoid irrelevant citation requests and disclose conflicts promptly.

6. Editorial Responsibilities and Independence

Editors select appropriate reviewers, manage conflicts, safeguard confidentiality and make decisions based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethics and relevance. Editorial decisions remain independent of APCs, waiver status, advertising, sponsorship, ownership or marketing activity.

7. Ethical Concerns, Data Integrity and Research Misconduct

Reviewers and editors should report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, citation manipulation, unethical authorship, undisclosed conflicts, peer-review manipulation or other integrity concerns. ARSS may request supporting data or documentation and act under its publication-ethics and post-publication procedures.

8. Special Issues and Invited Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted to special issues or by invitation are subject to the same standards of editorial independence, conflict management 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.

9. Review Time and Publication Timelines

ARSS aims to manage peer review efficiently but does not guarantee a fixed review or publication time. Authors should receive reasonable communication if significant delays arise, and publication timing depends on completion of review, revisions, editorial checks and production.

10. Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe a material error occurred in the review or decision process. An appeal should identify the specific issue and provide supporting information. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

11. Editorial Office

Questions regarding peer review 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.