Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal (FSSHJ)
Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal (FSSHJ) values the essential contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating submitted manuscripts and assisting editors in making fair and informed publication decisions.
The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review Process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
- Conduct reviews objectively and professionally.
- Provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts.
- Evaluate submissions solely on academic merit.
- Respect confidentiality throughout the review process.
- Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
Before Accepting a Review
Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if:
- The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
- They can provide an objective evaluation.
- They can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
- They have no conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or research.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they should promptly notify the editorial office.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.
Reviewers must:
- Not share manuscripts with others without editorial permission.
- Not discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.
- Not use unpublished information for personal research or advantage.
- Delete manuscript files after completion of the review process if requested.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
Originality and Contribution
- Does the manuscript present original research or analysis?
- Does it contribute meaningful knowledge to the field?
- Is the topic relevant and significant?
Relevance to Journal Scope
- Does the manuscript fit within the aims and scope of the journal?
- Will it be of interest to the journal’s readership?
Literature Review
- Is the literature review comprehensive and current?
- Are relevant studies properly cited and discussed?
Methodology
- Is the research design appropriate?
- Are methods clearly described?
- Is the analysis scientifically and academically sound?
Results and Findings
- Are findings presented clearly?
- Are conclusions supported by evidence?
- Is the interpretation logical and meaningful?
Organization and Presentation
- Is the manuscript well structured?
- Is the language clear and understandable?
- Are tables, figures, and references appropriate?
Ethical Compliance
- Is there any indication of plagiarism or duplicate publication?
- Are ethical standards properly followed?
- Are conflicts of interest disclosed when applicable?
Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial revisions.
Minor Revisions
The manuscript requires small corrections or clarifications before publication.
Major Revisions
Significant modifications are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or falls outside its scope.
Writing Review Reports
Review comments should:
- Be respectful and professional.
- Focus on improving the manuscript.
- Provide specific and actionable suggestions.
- Avoid personal criticism of authors.
- Clearly identify strengths and weaknesses.
Constructive reviews contribute to both author development and journal quality.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline a review assignment if they:
- Have collaborated with the authors recently.
- Have financial or personal interests related to the manuscript.
- Work at the same institution as the authors.
- Believe any relationship may affect impartial judgment.
Potential conflicts must be disclosed to the editor immediately.
Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should notify the editor if they suspect:
- Plagiarism.
- Duplicate publication.
- Data fabrication or falsification.
- Citation manipulation.
- Authorship disputes.
- Ethical misconduct.
The journal follows COPE recommendations when investigating ethical concerns.
Review Timeline
To ensure an efficient editorial process, reviewers are encouraged to:
- Accept or decline review invitations promptly.
- Submit completed reviews within the requested review period.
- Inform editors immediately if delays are unavoidable.
Recognition of Reviewers
The Editorial Board greatly appreciates the valuable contributions made by reviewers. Peer review is a vital component of scholarly publishing and helps maintain the quality, integrity, and academic standards of the journal.
Commitment to Excellence
By participating in the peer-review process, reviewers contribute to the advancement of knowledge in social sciences, humanities, and historical studies while supporting the publication of high-quality, ethical, and impactful research.