The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether a submitted manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of the Asian Social Sciences Review and meets the article’s maximum similarity threshold of 20%. Manuscripts that pass this screening are then assigned to an Editor for further editorial review.

The Editor invites at least two reviewers to evaluate each manuscript. All submissions undergo a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential to ensure objectivity and adherence to academic and ethical standards. The journal publishes only manuscripts that have been evaluated and approved by qualified scholars and researchers with expertise in the relevant field, with a minimum of two independent reviewers per article.

The Asian Social Sciences Review upholds rigorous double-blind peer review standards while maintaining an efficient and transparent editorial workflow. The key features of the peer review process for all research articles published in the journal are outlined below.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

The Asian Social Sciences Review employs a two-stage review process. Following a technical and administrative check, each submission undergoes an initial editorial evaluation to assess its relevance and suitability for the journal. Manuscripts deemed appropriate are then assigned to an Editor for further review and decision-making.

If a manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and editorial criteria, it is assigned to an Editor, who identifies and contacts two reviewers recognized as experts in the field. As peer review is a voluntary academic service, the process may take some time; however, the Editor will periodically remind reviewers to ensure timely responses. At this stage, the manuscript status is marked as “Under Review”.

Once the Editor receives the minimum required number of expert reviews, the manuscript status is updated to “Required Reviews Complete”. Authors are then notified and requested to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and recommendations.

After the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor evaluates whether the revisions adequately address the reviewers’ feedback. If the revisions are deemed insufficient, the manuscript may be returned to the author for further revision.

The Editor may also determine that a manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope and should not be considered further. In such cases, the author will be promptly informed of the rejection and, where appropriate, advised to submit the manuscript to a more suitable journal.

Peer Review of Referred Papers

For manuscripts referred from supporting journals, the Editor will decide whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or revised based on existing reviews and editorial input. Additional reviews may be requested if deemed necessary. Authors will be notified if further review is required.

Summary of the Review Workflow

1. Manuscript Submission (by the author).
2. Manuscript Screening and Selection (by the editor).
3. Editorial decision to accept, reject, or proceed with peer review. Prior to further processing, all manuscripts undergo a plagiarism check using Turnitin.
4. Manuscript Review Process (by reviewers).
5. Editorial decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) communicated to the author based on reviewers’ comments.
6. Manuscript Revision (by the author).
7. Resubmission of the revised manuscript in accordance with reviewers’ recommendations.
8. Final evaluation of revisions and notification of acceptance by the editor.
9. Galley proof preparation and publication.

Steps 1 to 5 constitute one complete round of peer review. The editor or editorial board evaluates the reviewers’ reports and makes an editorial decision. The most common decisions include:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal’s academic standards and has been accepted for publication.
• Revisions Required: The manuscript requires revision before it can be reconsidered for publication.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revision and will be subject to further peer review upon resubmission.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not fall within the journal’s scope and should be submitted to a more appropriate journal.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript has been rejected and will not be considered further.
• See Comments: The editorial decision is accompanied by comments from the editor and/or reviewers.

The final decision to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations. In certain cases, additional reviewers may be invited for a second or subsequent round of review before a final decision is reached. The publication schedule of accepted manuscripts, including their order of appearance, is determined by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the date of acceptance and geographical representation.

In accordance with publication ethics, all manuscripts under review are treated as confidential until publication.