The International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science (IJITSS) is committed to ensuring a rigorous and fair peer review process that upholds the highest standards of academic integrity and quality. All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review to maintain objectivity and confidentiality. The following outlines the steps in the journal's peer review process:

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

• Upon submission, all manuscripts are initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor to ensure they align with the Aims and Scope of the journal and meet the submission guidelines.
• Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements, such as improper formatting or incomplete submission materials, may be returned to the author for correction before proceeding to the review stage.
• Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are deemed to fall outside the scope of the journal or lack sufficient academic merit.

2. Plagiarism Check

• All manuscripts are subjected to a plagiarism detection screening using plagiarism-checking software. Any manuscript with significant overlaps with previously published work will be rejected immediately or returned to the author for revision, depending on the severity of the issue.

3. Assignment of Reviewers

• Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
• The journal uses a double-blind review process, meaning that both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. This ensures objectivity and impartiality.
• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience, and care is taken to avoid any conflicts of interest.

4. Review Process

• Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria, including:
  • Originality: The novelty of the research and its contribution to the field.
  • Methodology: The appropriateness and rigor of the methods used.
  • Clarity and Organization: The clarity of writing and logical structure of the manuscript.
  • Significance: The relevance and potential impact of the findings on the field of social science and related disciplines.
  • Ethical Considerations: Reviewers also assess whether the research complies with ethical standards, particularly for studies involving human or animal subjects.
• Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback, suggesting improvements where necessary. They may recommend one of the following actions:
  • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or minor revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript is acceptable, but minor changes are required before it can be published.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

5. Author Revision

• If revisions are requested, the manuscript will be returned to the authors with the reviewers' comments. Authors are expected to revise the manuscript accordingly and provide a detailed response to reviewers outlining how each comment was addressed.
• Depending on the extent of revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation or assessed directly by the editorial team.

6. Final Decision

• Once the revisions are deemed satisfactory, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will make the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
• Authors will be notified of the decision, along with any further required actions, such as final formatting checks or additional revisions.

7. Post-Acceptance

• Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, where they are copyedited and typeset. Authors will have the opportunity to review the proofs before final publication.
• The article is then published in the upcoming issue of the journal, in line with the journal's quarterly publishing schedule.

8. Timeliness of the Review Process

• IJITSS is committed to a timely review process. Reviewers are typically given two weeks to complete their reviews. Authors are expected to submit revisions within the time frame specified by the editor.
• The entire process from submission to the final decision typically takes 6 to 8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the revisions and the responsiveness of reviewers and authors.

9. Confidentiality

• The review process is treated as confidential. Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and must not disclose any information or use the material for personal advantage.

10. Conflicts of Interest

• Reviewers, authors, and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review process. In such cases, the editor may assign the manuscript to an alternative reviewer to ensure fairness.