Reviewers Policies

Peer Review Process

Decisions regarding the publication of submitted manuscripts are made through a combination of editorial evaluation and peer review. Upon submission, each manuscript is initially examined by members of the editorial team to determine whether it should be sent for external review. The primary aim of this stage is to provide authors with a timely decision when a manuscript clearly does not qualify for further consideration.

Editorials, commentaries, and letters may occasionally be accepted without undergoing external review. However, in most cases, manuscripts are either declined at this preliminary stage or forwarded for peer review. Papers that fail to meet the journal’s fundamental standards—such as those lacking sufficient originality, theoretical rigor, methodological soundness, or relevance to the humanities and social sciences—may be rejected at this point to prevent unnecessary delays for authors who may wish to submit their work elsewhere. In some instances, manuscripts may be returned to authors for revision prior to a decision on whether to proceed with peer review. Authors can generally expect an initial editorial decision within one to two weeks of submission.

Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are evaluated by members of an international panel of scholars and subject experts. Each paper is subject to double-blind peer review by two or more independent reviewers under the supervision of the Section Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. The journal makes every effort to ensure that authors’ identities remain anonymous during the review process. Authors are responsible for removing identifying details from their manuscripts. If identifying information is included, the review may be conducted in a single-blind format.

BHSS aims to complete the peer review process within four weeks of initiating review, although occasional delays may occur. Authors are advised to allow up to six weeks from submission before contacting the editorial office regarding the status of their manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief retains full authority over the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a central role in ensuring the scholarly quality, integrity, and academic contribution of the journal. As participants in a double-blind review process, reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding both the manuscript and their identity.

A reviewer should decline an invitation if:

  • The manuscript falls outside their area of expertise

  • They cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe

  • They have any conflict of interest

All manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute the manuscript without prior editorial approval. If unable to complete a review, they should decline directly rather than transfer the manuscript to another individual.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions objectively and critically, assessing:

  • Originality and scholarly contribution

  • Theoretical framework and analytical depth

  • Methodological rigor (where applicable)

  • Clarity of research objectives and argumentation

  • Logical coherence and structure

  • Quality of references and citation practices

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

  • Language clarity and academic presentation

  • Absence of plagiarism or academic misconduct

If reviewers become aware of substantial similarity between the submitted manuscript and another published or submitted work, they should notify the editor immediately.

Reviewer comments should be constructive, objective, and supported by clear arguments (typically 500–1000 words where detailed evaluation is required). Personal criticism of authors is strictly prohibited. Evaluations must focus solely on the scholarly merit of the work.

Reviewer recommendations (accept, revise, or reject) play a decisive role in editorial decisions and must therefore be made responsibly and ethically.

Peer Review Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential information

  • Decline reviews when conflicts of interest exist

  • Report any suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication

  • Identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked

  • Provide objective and evidence-based evaluations

  • Avoid allowing personal knowledge of authors to influence their judgment

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors bear full responsibility and authority for accepting or rejecting manuscripts.

Editors must:

  • Ensure compliance with journal structure and author guidelines

  • Base decisions solely on scholarly merit, originality, clarity, and relevance

  • Avoid conflicts of interest among authors, reviewers, and editorial staff

  • Refrain from altering decisions without substantial justification

  • Take action in cases of suspected misconduct

  • Maintain reviewer anonymity

  • Ensure adherence to ethical and academic standards

  • Guarantee the integrity of the scholarly record

  • Issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary

  • Consider the needs of authors and readers in improving journal quality

Editors must not reject manuscripts based on suspicion alone; evidence of misconduct is required before action is taken.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality is fundamental to the publication process. Editors and reviewers must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts to individuals not directly involved in the review and publication process.

Editors commit to safeguarding:

  • Author identities

  • Reviewer identities

  • Reviewer comments

  • Unpublished research findings

Peer review comments will not be disclosed without appropriate permission, except in cases where open peer review is explicitly part of journal policy.

Confidentiality may only be breached in cases involving credible allegations of academic dishonesty, fraud, or legal concerns, and only in accordance with ethical standards.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal advantage.

Peer Review and Timeliness

Editors are committed to:

  • Ensuring fair and timely review of manuscripts

  • Assessing reviewer comments objectively

  • Managing conflicts of interest appropriately

  • Ensuring independent review of manuscripts submitted by editorial board members

  • Processing submissions efficiently

If the journal determines that a manuscript is not suitable for publication, the editorial team will make every effort to notify authors promptly, enabling them to seek alternative publication venues without unnecessary delay.