Peer Review Policy
"The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies" (CRSSS) is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and impactful research contributions to the field. To ensure this standard, we employ a rigorous and fair peer review process. This policy outlines the key principles and procedures governing manuscript evaluation.
Types of Peer Review:
CRSSS utilizes a double-blind peer review process for all research articles. This means the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. This helps to ensure that evaluations are based solely on the merit of the work itself, minimizing potential bias.
Selection of Reviewers:
Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the specific subject area of the submitted manuscript. They are also screened for potential conflicts of interest with the authors or their research. We strive to select reviewers who represent diverse perspectives and methodological approaches within the field.
Review Criteria:
Manuscripts are assessed based on the following criteria:
- Originality and Significance: Does the research address an important issue and make a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge?
- Conceptual Framework: Is the research grounded in a clear and well-developed theoretical framework?
- Methodology: Is the research design appropriate and rigorous? Are the methods clearly explained and justified?
- Analysis and Interpretation: Are the findings presented in a clear and organized manner? Are the interpretations well-supported by the evidence?
- Writing and Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written, grammatically correct, and free of errors? Is the formatting consistent with journal guidelines?
- Ethical Considerations: Are ethical research practices adhered to throughout the study?
Review Process:
- Initial Screening: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial desk review by the editorial team to ensure they meet basic formatting and content requirements.
- Peer Review: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to two qualified reviewers for double-blind evaluation. Reviewers provide written reports and recommendations, including suggestions for improvement.
- Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers' reports and makes a final decision on the manuscript (accept, revise, or reject). If revisions are required, authors are given the opportunity to address the reviewers' concerns and resubmit the manuscript.
