Global Humanities and Social Sciences

1. Overview

Global Humanities and Social Sciences (GHSS) applies an editorial and external review process appropriate to the type, content and academic requirements of each submission.

All submissions undergo initial editorial assessment. Depending on the manuscript type and subject matter, a submission may then be referred for external peer review, external academic consultation or further editorial assessment.

The purpose of this process is to evaluate the manuscript’s relevance, originality, scholarly quality, clarity, use of evidence or sources and compliance with applicable ethical requirements, while allowing the editorial team to select an appropriate form of assessment for each contribution.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions are first assessed by the editorial team.

The initial assessment may consider:

• relevance to the journal’s Aims and Scope;
• suitability of the selected manuscript type;
• originality and clarity of the scholarly contribution;
• quality of the argument, evidence, sources or research design;
• engagement with relevant scholarship;
• clarity and organisation of the manuscript;
• compliance with submission and formatting requirements; and
• research integrity, ethical declarations and potential conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, do not present a sufficiently clear scholarly contribution or do not meet the journal’s basic editorial and ethical requirements may be declined without external review.

The editorial office may also request preliminary revisions or additional information before deciding whether a manuscript should proceed to external assessment.

3. External Academic and Peer Review

Original Research Articles and Review Articles are normally referred to one or more independent external academic experts where appropriate.

Theoretical Articles, Research Notes and substantial Case Studies or Practice-Based Research may also be referred for external peer review according to their content, academic contribution and disciplinary requirements.

Perspectives, Scholarly Reflections, Commentaries and Book Reviews may be assessed primarily by the editorial team. External academic consultation may nevertheless be arranged where specialist knowledge, additional verification or independent evaluation is considered useful.

External reviewers are selected according to factors including:

• relevant subject knowledge and academic experience;
• suitability for the manuscript’s disciplinary or interdisciplinary focus;
• independence from the authors and the research;
• availability within a reasonable period; and
• absence of material personal, professional, institutional or financial conflicts of interest.

Reviewer reports are advisory. The responsible editor considers the reports together with the manuscript, the authors’ responses and the journal’s editorial requirements when making a decision.

Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, or where additional expertise is required, the editorial team may seek another assessment.

4. Review Arrangements

GHSS does not guarantee the same review arrangement for every manuscript.

The journal does not apply:

• a fixed number of external reviewers to every submission;
• a uniform anonymity model to every manuscript;
• automatic external review for every manuscript type; or
• a guaranteed review or decision period.

The form of review is determined by the editorial team according to the manuscript type, subject area, content, academic requirements, availability of suitable reviewers and any relevant ethical or practical considerations.

Where an anonymised review process is considered appropriate, authors may be asked to submit a version of the manuscript from which identifying information has been removed.

The use of a particular review arrangement does not reduce the journal’s expectation that all assessments should be independent, fair, evidence-based and academically responsible.

5. Review Criteria

Where external assessment is undertaken, reviewers may be asked to consider:

• the manuscript’s relevance to the journal;
• the originality and significance of its contribution;
• the quality and appropriateness of its methods, sources or analytical approach;
• the strength and coherence of its argument;
• the adequacy of its engagement with relevant literature;
• the relationship between the evidence presented and the conclusions reached;
• the clarity and organisation of the manuscript;
• relevant ethical, disclosure or research-integrity issues; and
• the nature and extent of any revisions required.

The relative importance of these criteria may vary according to the discipline and manuscript type. GHSS does not use a fixed percentage-based scoring system for all submissions.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following initial editorial assessment and any external review or consultation, the journal may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial, formatting or production requirements.

Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially alter its central argument, methodology or scholarly contribution.

Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial revision, further analysis, clarification, restructuring or additional evidence before it can be reconsidered.

Reject
The manuscript is not suitable for publication in GHSS in its current form or does not meet the journal’s editorial, academic or ethical requirements.

A request for revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the responsible editor, acting in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and academic standards.

7. Revisions

Authors receiving a revision request should consider the editorial and reviewer comments carefully.

A revised submission should normally include:

• a revised manuscript;
• a concise response to the editorial and reviewer comments; and
• a clear indication of the principal changes made.

Authors are not required to accept every suggested change. Where a recommendation has not been followed, the author should provide a reasoned academic explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the editorial team, returned to the original reviewer or reviewers, or referred to another external expert where necessary.

The editorial team may request more than one round of revision where this is justified by the manuscript’s academic or editorial needs.

8. Processing Time

Processing times vary according to:

• the manuscript type and length;
• the quality and completeness of the original submission;
• the subject area and degree of specialisation;
• the availability of suitable external reviewers;
• the time required for author revisions;
• the need for further assessment or ethical clarification; and
• editorial and production requirements.

GHSS does not guarantee a fixed time to initial decision, completion of external review, final acceptance or publication.

The editorial office will seek to manage submissions responsibly and communicate significant developments to the corresponding author where reasonably practicable.

9. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Editors, editorial staff and external reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts, associated data and editorial correspondence as confidential.

Submitted material must not be shared, used or discussed outside the assessment process except where authorised by the editorial office or required to investigate a research-integrity or legal concern.

Editors and reviewers should disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality.

Individuals with a material personal, professional, institutional, academic or financial conflict of interest should not participate in the assessment or decision-making process for the manuscript concerned.

Authors must also disclose relevant competing interests in accordance with the journal’s Author Guidelines and Publication Ethics policies.

10. Editorial Responsibility

The editorial team is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers or advisers, evaluating reports and making publication decisions.

Editorial decisions should be based on the manuscript’s academic merits, relevance to the journal and compliance with editorial and ethical requirements. Institutional relationships, financial considerations, author status or personal connections must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee external review, acceptance or publication.

11. Contact

Questions concerning the editorial or review process may be sent to:

GHSS Editorial Office
Email: ghss@iaoalliance.org