1) Purpose

GSSHJ uses peer review to ensure submitted manuscripts meet high standards of scholarly quality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance to the social sciences and humanities.

2) Review Model

GSSHJ operates a double-blind peer review process:

• • Authors do not know reviewer identities.

  • Reviewers do not know author identities.
    Authors must submit a blinded manuscript (no names/affiliations/self-identifying statements).

3) Editorial Screening 

All submissions undergo an initial editorial check to confirm:

• • Fit with journal scope and aims

  • Basic scholarly quality and clarity

  • Compliance with formatting and ethics requirements

  • Similarity/plagiarism screening (where applicable)
    Manuscripts may be desk-rejected if clearly out of scope or below minimum standards.

4) Reviewer Selection

• • Typically two independent reviewers are assigned per manuscript; a third reviewer may be added if reports conflict or require specialist input.

  • Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, methodological competence, and ability to provide fair, constructive feedback.

  • GSSHJ aims to avoid over-reliance on a small reviewer pool and encourages diversity of perspectives.

5) Conflicts of Interest (COI)

Reviewers and editors must declare conflicts and decline if they have, for example:

• • Recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, supervision, or close personal relationship with an author

  • Financial, political, or professional interests that could bias judgment

  • Direct competitive or adversarial relationships that impair objectivity

6) Confidentiality

• • Submissions, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential.

  • Reviewers must not share, cite, distribute, or use manuscript content prior to publication.

  • Reviewer identity is protected under the double-blind model unless explicitly disclosed by the reviewer and permitted by the journal.

7) Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess:

• • Originality & contribution to scholarship or practice

  • Theoretical framing and engagement with relevant literature

  • Methodological rigor (qualitative, quantitative, mixed, historical, interpretive—appropriate to the work)

  • Evidence and argumentation (logic, coherence, transparency)

  • Ethics and responsible research (human participants, sensitive data, consent, approvals where relevant)

  • Clarity, structure, and academic writing quality

  • Significance and relevance to the journal’s readership

8) Editorial Decisions

Possible outcomes:

• • Accept

  • Minor revisions (limited changes required)

  • Major revisions (substantive changes required; may return to reviewers)

  • Reject (not suitable or does not meet standards)

  • Revise and resubmit (new submission after substantial reworking, when applicable)

Final decisions are made by the Editor/Editorial Team, informed by reviewer reports.

9) Revision and Author Response

Authors submitting a revision must include:

• • A response letter addressing each reviewer/editor comment

  • A revised manuscript (preferably with tracked changes or a change log)
    If an author disagrees with a comment, they should respond respectfully with scholarly justification.

10) Reviewer Conduct and Quality

Reviews must be:

• • Respectful, objective, and evidence-based

  • Constructive and specific (major vs. minor issues clearly separated)
    Prohibited behaviors include personal attacks, discriminatory language, coercive citation demands, or requests unrelated to scholarly improvement.

11) Use of AI Tools

To protect confidentiality and integrity:

• • Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to external AI tools or services that store data or use it for training.

  • Limited AI use for language polishing of the review text (not manuscript analysis) is permitted only if no confidential content is shared.

  • Any AI assistance that materially shapes the review’s conclusions must be disclosed to the editor.

12) Research Integrity and Misconduct

GSSHJ may take action (including rejection, corrections, retractions, or author bans) in cases of:

• • Plagiarism or duplicate submission/publication

  • Fabrication/falsification of data

  • Manipulated peer review or fake reviewer identities

  • Citation manipulation or undisclosed conflicts of interest
    Concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

13) Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a decision within 14 days by providing:

• • A clear rationale (procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or evidence of bias)
    Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or an independent editorial member; the appeal decision is final.

14) Recordkeeping

GSSHJ retains editorial and review records securely for audit and integrity purposes, with access restricted to authorized editorial staff.