Peer Review Policy

Peer Review and Editorial Process

Overview

The Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences (CJSS) operates a double-anonymized peer review system to ensure the quality, integrity, and scholarly relevance of all published research. The journal is committed to fair, objective, independent, and timely editorial evaluation in accordance with internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing and research integrity.

All submissions are assessed on the basis of:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope in the social sciences;
• Originality and contribution to knowledge;
• Theoretical and conceptual grounding;
• Methodological appropriateness and rigor;
• Clarity of analysis, structure, and academic presentation; and
• Compliance with ethical and editorial standards.

Only manuscripts that meet the journal’s baseline scholarly and ethical requirements proceed to external peer review.

Back to Contents

1. Submission

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system.

Authors are required to ensure that submissions:

• Fall within the aims and scope of the journal;
• Are original and are not under consideration elsewhere;
• Are prepared in accordance with the journal’s Author Guidelines;
• Comply with APA style and other technical requirements;
• Include all required declarations, including conflicts of interest, funding information, and, where applicable, ethical approval;
• Disclose any use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in accordance with the journal’s AI Policy.

All submissions are subject to preliminary checks before peer review.

Back to Contents

2. Assignment to Handling Editor

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor / Subject Editor with relevant disciplinary expertise.

The Handling Editor is responsible for:

• Overseeing the peer review process;
• Selecting appropriate reviewers;
• Evaluating reviewer reports;
• Making a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for editorial decisions in all cases.

Back to Contents

3. Peer Review Model

CJSS uses a double-anonymized peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Each eligible manuscript is normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field of social science research.

Peer review is intended to assess the academic quality, rigor, originality, and relevance of submissions and to support sound editorial decision-making.

Back to Contents

4. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• Demonstrated expertise in the relevant subject area;
• Academic qualifications and publication record;
• Institutional and professional independence from the authors, where possible;
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The editorial team seeks reviewers capable of evaluating the manuscript fairly, competently, and objectively.

Back to Contents

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts with reference to the following criteria:

• Originality and contribution to the field;
• Relevance to the journal and to social science scholarship;
• Adequacy of the theoretical and conceptual framework;
• Methodological appropriateness and rigor;
• Quality, coherence, and credibility of analysis;
• Engagement with relevant literature;
• Clarity of structure, argumentation, and academic writing;
• Validity of conclusions and their relation to the evidence presented.

Reviewers may also identify ethical concerns, missing references, major overlap with existing publications, or other issues affecting the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

Back to Contents

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are invited to submit a recommendation using one of the following decision categories:

• Accept
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit / major revisions
• Reject

Back to Contents

7. Editorial Decision

After the reviewer reports are received, the Handling Editor evaluates the reviews and submits a recommendation.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Possible decisions include:

• Acceptance without revision;
• Acceptance subject to minor revisions;
• Major revisions required; and
• Rejection.

Where reviewer reports diverge significantly, the journal may:

• Seek an additional reviewer report;
• Make an editorial determination based on the reports received and the judgment of the editorial team.

Editorial decisions are made on the basis of scholarly merit, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.

Back to Contents

8. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are expected to:

• Submit the revised manuscript within the timeframe specified in the decision letter;
• Provide a clear and detailed response to reviewer and editorial comments;
• Indicate how each point has been addressed in the revised version.

Depending on the nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be:

• Returned to the original reviewers for further assessment; or
• Evaluated directly by the Handling Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief.

CJSS may permit multiple rounds of revision, as required, to ensure that manuscripts meet the journal’s academic and editorial standards.

An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

Back to Contents

9. Review Timelines

CJSS aims to ensure an efficient editorial and review process. Indicative timelines are as follows:

• Editorial screening: approximately 2–3 weeks;
• Peer review: approximately 3–6 weeks; and
• First decision: approximately 4–8 weeks.

These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the nature of the submission, and the extent of revision required.

Back to Contents

10. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations;
• Assess manuscripts within the scope of their expertise;
• Maintain confidentiality with respect to all materials received;
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editors promptly if unable to do so;
• Identify relevant work not cited by the authors, where appropriate; and
• Alert the editors to possible ethical concerns, plagiarism, or substantial overlap with other publications known to them.

Reviewers must not:

• Use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage;
• Share, circulate, or disclose manuscript content;
• Upload confidential manuscripts, decision letters, or review reports to generative AI tools; 
• Use AI tools to generate review reports or substitute for their own scholarly judgment.

Reviews should be professional, respectful, and sufficiently detailed to support editorial assessment and author revision.

Back to Contents

11. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for safeguarding the academic quality and integrity of the journal.

Editors are expected to:

• Evaluate submissions fairly, consistently, and confidentially;
• Make decisions based on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, clarity, and methodological quality;
• Preserve the integrity of the peer review process;
• Maintain reviewer anonymity within the journal’s review model;
• Address ethical concerns or suspected misconduct in accordance with journal policy; and
• Ensure that conflicts of interest are identified and managed appropriately.

Editors must not:

• Handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest;
• Handle manuscripts they have authored or co-authored;
• Use generative AI tools for editorial decision-making;
• Upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential editorial documents to AI tools.

Editorial decisions must be made independently and without discrimination based on authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, political viewpoint, or other non-scholarly considerations.

Back to Contents

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written request to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals should:

• Explain clearly why the author believes the decision should be reconsidered; and
• Respond specifically to the editorial and reviewer concerns raised.

Appeals are considered carefully and may involve:

• Internal editorial review;
• Consultation with an additional editor; or
• Consultation with an additional external reviewer, where appropriate.

The decision made following the appeal review is final.

Back to Contents

13. Post-Acceptance Process

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which may include:

• Copyediting;
• Language editing;
• Formatting and layout preparation;
• Author proofreading;
• Final publication.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not necessarily determine immediate publication order. Publication scheduling may also depend on editorial planning, issue composition, and thematic balance.

Back to Contents

14. Integrity, Transparency, and Continuous Improvement

CJSS is committed to maintaining transparent, accountable, and ethically sound editorial procedures.

The journal regularly reviews and refines its policies and practices to align with evolving standards in scholarly publishing and the requirements of recognized indexing and abstracting services.

The journal’s peer review and editorial procedures are intended to support high-quality social science scholarship and to ensure that all published content meets appropriate academic, ethical, and editorial standards.

Optional note: A substantial proportion of submissions are declined at the editorial screening stage, reflecting the journal’s commitment to maintaining scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the social sciences.

Back to Contents