Double-Blind Peer Review Guidelines

 

The Social Archives (TSA) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, transparency, and academic integrity in the evaluation of all submissions. In this process, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other to eliminate potential bias and maintain objectivity.

Review Process

  • After the initial editorial screening for scope, formatting, and plagiarism, manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers assess the paper’s originality, methodological soundness, theoretical contribution, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
    - Accept without revision
    - Accept with minor revisions
    - Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
    - Reject

Anonymity and Confidentiality

  • Editor should remove any identifying information (authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments) from the main manuscript file before submission.
  • Reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality and must not share or discuss the manuscript with others.
  • The identities of authors and reviewers remain undisclosed throughout the review and publication process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback.
  • Evaluate the quality, originality, and ethical standards of the research.
  • Report any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct to the editor.

Editorial Decision

  • The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ comments and the overall quality of the paper.
  • Authors will be notified of the decision along with reviewers’ suggestions for improvement, if applicable.

Integrity of the Review Process

TSA is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in peer review. Any attempt to compromise reviewer anonymity, manipulate reviews, or influence editorial decisions will be considered a serious ethical violation and handled in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies.