Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Gading Journal for the Social Sciences applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity and scholarly value of published research.

Overview of the Review Process

All submissions are evaluated through a multi-stage editorial and peer review process, designed to ensure fairness, objectivity and academic rigor.

The typical review timeline is 6 to 8 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and revision requirements.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Submissions are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor to determine:

  • Alignment with the journal’s scope
  • Originality and scholarly contribution
  • Methodological and conceptual soundness
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Compliance with submission requirements

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject knowledge and research experience
  • Publication record
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

Duties of Reviewers

  • Must disclose any competing interest before agreeing to review a submission.
  • Can decline to review any submission due to a conflict of interest or inadequate knowledge.
  • Review all submissions objectively, fairly and professionally.
  • Reveal any ethical misconduct encountered while reviewing to the Chief Editor for further action.
  • Should ensure the originality of a submission and be alert to any plagiarism and redundant publication.
  • Must not discuss the content of the submission without permission.
  • Adhere to the time allocated for the review process. Requests for extension to review the submission are at the discretion of the Chief Editor.

Double-Blind Review

The journal operates a double-blind review system, in which:

  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers
  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors
  • All materials are treated as strictly confidential.Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are assessed based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Theoretical or conceptual strength
  • Methodological rigor
  • Analytical depth and validity of findings
  • Clarity, organization and academic writing quality
  • Relevance to an international scholarly audience

Editorial Decisions

Decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment.

Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Revision Process

Authors invited to revise must:

  • Submit a point by point response to reviewer comments
  • Clearly indicate all revisions made

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.