Peer Review Process
The SJSS publishes research articles, academic articles and book reviews. All types of articles are required to go through the following rigorous peer review process.
1. Screening
The editorial team considers the content of the submitted article to ensure that it is within the scope of the SJSS. The format, writing, and language are also evaluated in the screening phase. Finally, plagiarism is checked by Turnitin. This screening process takes approximately 1 – 2 weeks.
The submitted article can be rejected during the screening process due to one of the following reasons:
1.1 The content of the article does not lie within the scope of the SJSS.
1.2 Over 30% content similarity is found in the plagiarism checking process.
1.3 There is no significant academic contribution.
1.4 There are no real practical implications from the study or research.
1.5 The article is illegible due to poor formatting, presentation, or language use.
1.6 Reference styles are not correct.
2. Peer Reviewing
The editorial team selects three reviewers who are considered experts in the area of the submitted article. The selected reviewers must also be from different institutions from the authors. The SJSS uses a double-blind review, which means that the identities of both the reviewers and authors are hidden from one another. The peer review process takes approximately 1-2 months.
3. Notification of Peer Review Results
The editorial team is responsible for the final evaluation decision. There are four potential results as follows:
3.1 Accepted without corrections: In this case, the paper is deemed ready for publication without any further revisions required. The authors will receive an acceptance letter shortly thereafter and the publication fee is applied.
3.2 Accepted with minor corrections: If the article falls under this category, the authors will need to make some minor changes based on the reviewers' comments. Once the corrections are made, the revised paper will be reviewed by the editor to ensure that all the comments have been adequately addressed. The editor will then make a final decision, considering the quality of the corrections, to determine if the paper is ready for publication or if further adjustments are needed. For minor corrections, it is not necessary to send this paper back to the reviewers for reevaluation.
3.3 Accepted with major corrections: If the paper receives this answer, the decision for publication is put on hold due to identified problems. The authors are required to respond to all of the reviewers' comments and submit correction forms that demonstrate how each comment has been resolved. Once the revisions are completed, the revised version will be reevaluated by the same reviewers, unless they indicate otherwise. In this case, the paper will be reviewed by experts within the editorial board who possess expertise in the same field. The final decision on whether the paper is deemed "ready to publish" or "not ready to publish" will be determined based on the quality of the corrections. Further corrections can still be suggested if necessary, and rejection remains a possibility if the comments are not adequately addressed.
3.4 Rejected: If the paper falls under this category, it means that the reviewers have identified considerable critical problems pertaining to the research methodology, strength of the argument presented, lack of empirical data, or serious technical issues, among others. The authors will be provided with detailed feedback from the reviewers to help them enhance the paper's quality for potential future submission.
4. Revision
The authors must make changes and improvements in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. The editorial team will then evaluate the revised version unless the reviewers request to do so themselves. For English articles, a certificate of proofreading is required. The process of article revision until final acceptance takes approximately 1-2 months.