Peer Review Policy

The Fari Journal of Social Sciences and Law follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to maintain the quality, integrity, and credibility of the research it publishes. This Peer Review Policy outlines the procedures, responsibilities, and ethical standards for authors, reviewers, and the editorial team involved in the review process.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

• The Fari Journal of Social Sciences and Law employs a double-blind peer review system, where both the identity of the author(s) and the reviewer(s) remain confidential throughout the review process.
• This system ensures impartiality and objectivity, providing a fair evaluation of manuscripts based solely on academic merit and scholarly contribution, rather than on personal relationships or biases.

2. Reviewer Selection

• Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field relevant to the manuscript’s topic. The editorial board identifies and invites potential reviewers with the appropriate knowledge and experience to evaluate the submitted work.
• The journal strives to maintain diversity in the selection of reviewers, considering factors such as geographical representation, academic background, and experience in the field.
• Reviewers are typically academics, researchers, or practitioners with a solid publication record and specialized knowledge in the areas of social sciences and law.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript on its academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field of social sciences and law.
• The key responsibilities of reviewers include:
  • Assessing the relevance and significance of the research question.
  • Reviewing the robustness and transparency of the research methodology.
  • Ensuring that the findings and conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.
  • Providing constructive feedback to the author(s) that enhances the quality of the manuscript.
  • Identifying potential ethical issues in the manuscript, including concerns related to data integrity, plagiarism, or human subjects research.
  • Maintaining confidentiality and not using the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
  • Submitting a detailed review report in a timely manner.

4. Review Process Timeline

• The journal aims to provide an initial decision (accept, revise, or reject) within 4-6 weeks of manuscript submission. Reviewers are given a reasonable amount of time (typically 2-3 weeks) to evaluate each manuscript.
• Authors are notified of the decision, along with the feedback from reviewers, and will be asked to make revisions or provide additional clarifications as needed.

5. Types of Peer Review Decisions

• The possible outcomes of the peer review process are as follows:
  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or minimal revisions.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be accepted. Authors are asked to address specific comments or suggestions from reviewers.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before being reconsidered for publication. Authors are asked to make significant changes to improve the manuscript's quality.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to issues such as lack of originality, poor methodology, or failure to meet the journal’s standards.

6. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and not disclose any information about the manuscript to third parties. Reviewers must also refrain from discussing or sharing the manuscript or its contents with others during the review process.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation. This includes professional or personal relationships with the authors, financial interests, or any other factors that could affect their objectivity. If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer will be recused from the review process for that manuscript.

7. Ethical Standards in Peer Review

• The Fari Journal of Social Sciences and Law adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are expected to follow the ethical standards for publishing, including:
  • Ensuring that all data and findings in the manuscript are accurately reported and that proper acknowledgment is given to sources.
  • Identifying any signs of plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical violations in the manuscript and reporting them to the editorial team.
  • Avoiding any use of unpublished information from the manuscript for personal gain or in any competitive context.
  • Ensuring that all research adheres to ethical standards, particularly with respect to human rights and confidentiality in the case of studies involving human subjects or sensitive data.

8. Reviewer Feedback and Author Revisions

• Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and specific feedback to authors. Review comments should focus on improving the quality of the manuscript, rather than providing general or unhelpful comments.
• The journal encourages reviewers to highlight the strengths of the manuscript as well as areas for improvement, offering suggestions where appropriate.
• Authors will receive the feedback from reviewers and are expected to address all comments or provide clear justifications if they choose not to implement a suggestion. A response to reviewers is required when submitting revised versions of the manuscript.

9. Appeals Process

• If an author disagrees with the editorial decision (e.g., rejection or revision), they may appeal the decision by submitting a formal request to the editorial board. The appeal must be based on clear grounds, such as perceived errors in the review process or in the evaluation of the manuscript.
• The editorial board will review the appeal and may involve additional reviewers or experts if necessary. The decision on the appeal will be communicated promptly to the author.

10. Transparency in Peer Review

• The Fari Journal of Social Sciences and Law values transparency in its peer review process. Authors and reviewers may request to know the identity of the reviewer(s) after the review is completed (if not part of a double-blind process), depending on the journal's policies and individual preferences.
• The journal aims to maintain openness in communication with authors regarding the peer review process, ensuring that they understand the rationale behind editorial decisions.

11. Policy Review

• This Peer Review Policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure it reflects best practices in academic publishing and peer review.
• Updates to the policy will be communicated to authors, reviewers, and other stakeholders through the journal’s website and other official communication channels.

---

By adhering to this Peer Review Policy, the Fari Journal of Social Sciences and Law aims to ensure the quality, integrity, and credibility of all published research, fostering a transparent and rigorous process that contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of social sciences and law.