Peer Review Policy

At Forefront in Sociology & Political Sciences, we are committed to ensuring the highest standards of quality and integrity in the academic research we publish. Our Peer Review Policy is designed to provide a transparent, fair, and unbiased review process for all manuscripts submitted to the journal. The peer review process is an essential part of the publication journey, ensuring that published work contributes to the advancement of knowledge in sociology and political science.

Types of Peer Review

To maintain objectivity and academic rigor, Forefront in Sociology & Political Sciences follows a double-blind peer review process. This means that:

Authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers during the review process.
Reviewers' identities are concealed from the authors to prevent any bias or personal influence.

This method ensures that the evaluation of each manuscript is based solely on its scholarly merit, methodology, and contribution to the field, rather than on personal relationships or reputations.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process at Forefront in Sociology & Political Sciences is designed to be thorough and transparent. Here’s how it works:

Initial Submission:
Once an author submits a manuscript, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine if the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and adheres to the submission guidelines.
Assignment of Reviewers:
If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is sent to two or more independent, expert reviewers in the relevant field of sociology or political science. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter.
Review Process:
The reviewers are given a set period (typically 2-3 weeks) to evaluate the manuscript. They provide feedback on various aspects of the manuscript, including:
- Originality: The manuscript’s contribution to existing literature and its novelty.
- Clarity and Structure: The quality of writing, argument structure, and logical flow of ideas.
- Methodology: The appropriateness of the research methods used.
- Significance: The relevance and importance of the findings for the field.
- Ethical Considerations: Any ethical issues in the research, including informed consent, data handling, and potential conflicts of interest.
Reviewer Recommendations:
After reviewing the manuscript, each reviewer provides a recommendation to the editorial team. The possible outcomes are:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no further revisions required.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires some minor revisions to improve clarity, methodology, or argumentation.
- Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are required, such as additional data analysis, restructuring of the manuscript, or clarification of the research findings.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to significant issues with its quality, originality, or relevance.
Decision and Feedback:
Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the Editor-in-Chief or managing editor makes the final decision. Authors are informed of the outcome and are provided with the reviewers’ comments. If revisions are required, authors are asked to address the feedback and resubmit the manuscript for a second round of review if necessary.
Final Decision:
After the second round of revisions (if applicable), the editorial team will make a final decision on whether the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Reviewer Guidelines

To maintain fairness, integrity, and objectivity, all reviewers are expected to follow these guidelines:

Confidentiality:
All manuscripts and associated materials are confidential. Reviewers must not share or disclose the contents of the manuscript to any third parties.
Impartiality:
Reviewers should provide objective and constructive feedback based on the quality and merit of the manuscript, without being influenced by personal, professional, or financial interests.
Expertise:
Reviewers should have relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. If a reviewer feels they are not qualified to evaluate the manuscript, they should decline the invitation to review.
Timeliness:
Reviewers should provide their feedback within the agreed-upon time frame. If they are unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial team promptly.
Conflict of Interest:
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment, including personal relationships with the authors or any financial or professional interests in the topic of the manuscript. If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must recuse themselves from the process.
Constructive Feedback:
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, actionable feedback. This feedback should help the authors improve the quality of their manuscript and contribute to the scholarly community. Personal criticism or negative comments that are not related to the content of the manuscript should be avoided.

Ethical Considerations in the Peer Review Process

Forefront in Sociology & Political Sciences adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to ensure the highest ethical standards in the peer review process. This includes:

Respecting the Rights of Authors and Reviewers:
Manuscripts under review are confidential, and reviewers must not use the information in the manuscript for their own research or gain.
Handling Suspected Misconduct:
If any reviewer suspects misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices, they are encouraged to report the issue to the editorial board. The journal will investigate the matter thoroughly and take appropriate action.
Transparency in Peer Review:
Authors are informed of the review process, and reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. The identities of the reviewers will remain confidential, but authors will have the option to request their manuscript be reviewed openly (e.g., open peer review) upon submission.

Open Peer Review

To promote transparency, Forefront in Sociology & Political Sciences offers an optional open peer review process, where:

The names of reviewers are published alongside the article.
Authors and reviewers can engage in constructive dialogue to improve the quality of the manuscript.

This optional system is intended to foster greater accountability and transparency in the review process and promote collaboration between authors and reviewers.

Peer Review Timeline

The peer review process typically takes 3 to 5 weeks, but this may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of suitable reviewers. Authors are encouraged to submit high-quality manuscripts that comply with the journal’s guidelines to minimize delays in the review process.

Appeals Process

If an author disagrees with the reviewer’s comments or the editorial decision, they may appeal the decision by submitting a detailed appeal letter to the Editorial Board. The appeal letter should include:

A clear explanation of the reasons for the appeal.
Any supporting evidence or documentation.

The Editorial Board will review the appeal and make a final decision. Please note that the decision made by the Editorial Board following an appeal is final.

Reviewer Recognition

We deeply appreciate the contributions of our reviewers, who play an essential role in ensuring the quality and rigor of the research we publish. To acknowledge their hard work, we offer:

Certificates of Review: Reviewers who complete a set number of reviews will receive a certificate.
Public Recognition: Reviewers who contribute regularly may be acknowledged in the journal’s annual reviewer list.
Reviewer Rewards: In some cases, we offer discounts on publication fees or free access to published articles for active reviewers.

Conclusion

The Peer Review Policy at Forefront in Sociology & Political Sciences ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated with fairness, transparency, and objectivity. We rely on the expertise of our reviewers to maintain the highest standards of scholarly excellence, and we are committed to supporting authors in their academic endeavors. By adhering to this policy, we aim to foster a rigorous and ethical publishing environment that contributes to the advancement of research in sociology and political science.

If you have any questions or concerns about our Peer Review Policy, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial team at Email: prithivraj@scientificforefront.org.