Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Humanities and Arts Perspectives (JHAP) is committed to upholding rigorous academic standards through a double-anonymous peer review process, ensuring fairness, objectivity, and high-quality scholarly contributions. Both author and reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Peer Review Timeline

  • The initial review process is typically completed within 4-6 weeks of submission.
  • Timelines may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review.
  • Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential and must not be shared or discussed outside the review process.

Review Process

Submission and Initial Screening

  • All submissions are assessed by the editorial team for alignment with the journal’s scope and adherence to submission guidelines.
  • Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements (e.g., formatting, originality) or fall outside the journal’s scope may be returned to authors without external review.

Assignment of Reviewers

  • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, lack of conflicts of interest, and ability to maintain the confidentiality of the review process.

Double-Anonymized Review

  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors, and authors’ identities are hidden from reviewers.
  • Authors are required to anonymize their manuscripts (e.g., removing names, affiliations, and acknowledgments) before submission. The editorial office assists with further anonymization if needed.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Ethical Standards: Compliance with ethical guidelines, including proper attribution and adherence to research integrity standards.At the Journal of Global Trends in Social Science (JGTSS）, we uphold rigorous academic standards through a double-anonymous peer review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review to maintain fairness and objectivity.
  • Originality: The novelty and contribution of the research to the fields of humanities and arts.
  • Theoretical and Methodological Rigor: The depth of theoretical engagement and appropriateness of research methodology.
  • Relevance: The significance of the study to the journal’s focus on humanities and arts scholarship.
  • Clarity: The coherence, structure, and readability of the manuscript.

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on their evaluation, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revisions
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Editorial Decision

The editorial team considers reviewers’ comments and recommendations to make the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Authors are provided with detailed and constructive feedback to improve their manuscripts, even in cases of rejection.

Revisions and Re-review

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the original reviewers whenever possible or assigned to new reviewers if necessary.

Authors must include a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer’s comments when resubmitting their manuscript.

Peer Review Timeline

The initial review process is typically completed within 4-6 weeks of submission. Timelines may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review.
  • Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential and must not be shared or discussed outside the review process.

Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or raise concerns about the review process may contact the editorial office with a detailed explanation.
  • Appeals are handled by senior editors or external reviewers to ensure transparency and fairness.

This policy reflects JHAP’s commitment to maintaining rigorous academic standards, ensuring a transparent and fair review process, and fostering a collaborative scholarly environment.