Chief Editor: Dr. Bakhtiar Khan
Discipline: Social Sciences (Miscellaneous)
Frequency: Annually
Publisher: Qlantic Publications
Address: Office #9, 1st Floor, Owais Tower, Opposite to Sheikh Maltoon Double Road, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Peer Review Policy
What is Peer Review?
Peer review is the essential mechanism used to evaluate the quality, originality, validity, and significance of a manuscript before it is accepted for formal publication. This process relies on independent researchers—experts in the relevant field—who critically assess submitted papers. Their evaluation assists the journal's editors in determining whether a manuscript merits publication.
THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process at the International Journal of Social Dynamics (IJSD) can be broadly outlined in the following steps, though minor variations may occur:
Submission of Paper: The corresponding author sends the manuscript to the journal, typically via an online system (OJS).
Editorial Office Assessment: The journal staff first checks the paper's formatting, structure, and arrangement against the Author Guidelines to ensure all required components are present. Manuscript quality is not assessed at this stage.
Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The EIC examines the manuscript to confirm it falls within the journal's scope and possesses sufficient originality and interest. If the paper is deemed inappropriate or weak, it may be desk-rejected without proceeding to external review.
EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE): In journals utilizing Associate Editors, the EIC assigns the manuscript to an AE, who will then manage the subsequent stages of the review process.
Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic. The journal’s double-blind process ensures that reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation.
Response to Invitations: Potential reviewers consider the request against their specific expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and current availability before accepting or declining. If declining, they often suggest alternate experts.
Review is Conducted: The invited reviewer reads the manuscript multiple times. The initial reading establishes a general impression; if significant flaws are immediately apparent, the reviewer may recommend outright rejection. Otherwise, they conduct a detailed, point-by-point assessment. The final review is submitted to the journal with a clear recommendation (Accept, Reject, or Revise—Major or Minor).
Journal Evaluates the Reviews: The handling editor carefully considers all returned reviewer reports before reaching a final decision. Should the reviews be highly contradictory, the editor may seek an additional reviewer to provide a tie-breaking or third opinion.
The Decision is Communicated: The editor formally informs the author of the decision via email, including relevant reviewer comments. Whether these comments are anonymous depends on the specific peer review structure employed by the journal (e.g., double-blind).
Next Steps:
● If accepted, the manuscript moves to the production stage.
● If rejected or sent back for revision (major or minor), the editor provides the constructive feedback from the reviewers to assist the author in improving the work. Reviewers are also notified of the final outcome.
● For papers requiring revision, reviewers may expect to receive the new version unless they explicitly opted out of further participation. However, if only minor changes were requested, the handling editor may manage the re-review internally.
