Peer Review and Editorial Decision Policy

Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to the Dyal Singh Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (DSJHSS) undergo an initial editorial screening. The screening considers the journal's scope, originality, basic scholarly quality, compliance with submission requirements, ethical considerations and suitability for external review.

A manuscript may be returned for correction or declined at this stage where it is outside scope, substantially incomplete, does not meet basic scholarly standards, duplicates previously published work, or presents serious ethical or integrity concerns.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Research articles considered suitable after initial screening undergo double-blind peer review. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

Each research article is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and are expected to be free of conflicts that could reasonably affect impartial evaluation.

If reviewer reports differ substantially, or if additional expertise is required, the editor may obtain an additional independent review.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are normally asked to consider matters such as:

·        originality and contribution to knowledge;

·        clarity and coherence of the argument;

·        theoretical or conceptual grounding;

·        methodological appropriateness, where applicable;

·        quality and interpretation of evidence;

·        ethical compliance;

·        accuracy and adequacy of relevant references; and

·        whether conclusions are supported by the analysis.

Language correction is not the principal purpose of peer review, although reviewers may identify language or presentation problems that affect scholarly clarity.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and peer-review reports are confidential editorial material. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute or use unpublished content for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to public generative-AI systems or other services that could compromise confidentiality.

Editorial Decisions

Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not by themselves determine, the editorial decision. Final decisions consider the reviewer reports, journal scope, originality, scholarly quality, ethical compliance and the authors' response to required revisions.

Decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission where appropriate, or rejection. Authors receive the editorial decision and relevant reviewer or editorial comments.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed editorially, depending on the nature of the revisions.

Non-Research Content

Book reviews and other clearly identified non-research material may be assessed through editorial review appropriate to the content type and are not presented as externally peer-reviewed original research.

Special Issues

Research articles in special issues are subject to the same standards of independent external peer review as regular research articles. Additional safeguards are described in the Special Issues and Guest Editor Policy.

Timelines

The time required for review depends on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript and the number and extent of revisions. DSJHSS does not guarantee acceptance or a fixed publication date. Where substantial delay occurs, the journal should communicate with the corresponding author.

Conflicts and Editorial Submissions

An editor, editorial-board member or guest editor who has a conflict of interest must not control the review or decision on the affected manuscript. Such manuscripts will be assigned to an appropriately independent editor or decision-making process.

Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision involved a significant procedural error or demonstrable misunderstanding may use the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. An appeal is not a mechanism for bypassing legitimate peer-review criticism.