Editorial and Peer Review

1. Editorial Screening and Initial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before entering the peer-review process. The editorial team evaluates manuscripts based on:

  1. Relevance to the aims and scope of JOSSAMS
  2. Originality and scholarly contribution
  3. Academic quality and clarity
  4. Methodological appropriateness
  5. Ethical compliance
  6. Adherence to submission requirements

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s aims and scope, fail to meet the required academic standards, raise significant ethical concerns, or do not comply with the journal’s submission requirements may be rejected during the initial editorial screening without being sent for external peer review.

All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism, inappropriate textual similarity, and potentially undisclosed AI-generated content using recognized detection tools, preferably Turnitin. The Editorial Team evaluates the screening reports in accordance with the journal’s established plagiarism and AI use policies, taking into consideration legitimate quotations, citations, references, and relevant disciplinary conventions. Automated detection scores alone do not constitute conclusive evidence of academic misconduct.

2.       Peer Review

The Journal of Social Sciences and Media Studies (JOSSAMS) follows a double anonymous peer-review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and academic quality. Under this process:

  1. The identity of authors is not disclosed to reviewers.
  2. The identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors.
  3. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently and confidentially.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial team screening are sent to at least two (02) independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts considering:

  1. Originality and Novelty
  2. Relationship to Literature
  3. Methodological Rigor
  4. Quality of Results
  5. Implications For Research, Practice and/or Society
  6. Quality of Communication
  7. Scientific Soundness
  8. Clarity of Argument
  9. Relevance of References and Citations
  10. Ethical Considerations

Based on reviewer reports, manuscripts may be:

  1. Accepted
  2. Accepted for publication with minor revisions
  3. Returned for major revision
  4. Rejected

If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Managing Editor or Editor-in-Chief may evaluate the manuscript further or seek an additional review from another expert.

The journal’s average review period from manuscript submission to the initial editorial decision is approximately three (03) months. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, the nature of the manuscript, and the time required for evaluation and revisions.

JOSSAMS does not assign manuscripts to reviewers affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors.

3.       Reviewer Selection, Invitation, and Database

The Journal of Social Sciences and Media Studies (JOSSAMS) maintains a database of qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the journal’s thematic areas.

Researchers with appropriate academic qualifications and research experience may register as potential reviewers by providing their academic profile/CV through the journal’s official platform.

The editorial team selects reviewers based on:

  1. Subject expertise
  2. Research Experience
  3. Publication Record
  4. Availability
  5. Absence of Conflicts of Interest

Potential reviewers are invited to review manuscripts according to their areas of expertise. Reviewers may accept or decline invitations based on their availability and suitability.

If a reviewer identifies any potential conflict of interest, they must immediately inform the editorial team and decline the review where appropriate.

4        Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality of JOSSAMS.

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Provide objective, constructive, and scholarly evaluations.
  2. Assess manuscripts only on academic merit.
  3. Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and review materials.
  4. Avoid using unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal benefit.
  5. Identify relevant published work that has not been cited where necessary.
  6. Report ethical concerns, including possible plagiarism, data manipulation, or other misconduct.
  7. Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts or review reports with others without prior permission from the editorial team.

5.       Editorial Responsibilities

Editorial Team of JOSSAMS is responsible for maintaining the quality, integrity, and transparency of the publication process.

Editorial Team shall:

  1. Ensure fair and unbiased editorial decisions.
  2. Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
  3. Select appropriate reviewers.
  4. Evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit.
  5. Address ethical concerns appropriately.
  6. Ensure compliance with journal policies.

Editorial Team shall not make decisions on manuscripts where personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships may influence their judgment.

Editorial Team decisions are based on scholarly quality and relevance rather than authors’ personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, religion, or political views.

6.       Reviewer Recognition and Engagement

The Journal of Social Sciences and Media Studies (JOSSAMS) maintains a reviewer database consisting of researchers and academics with relevant expertise.

The journal encourages qualified researchers to participate in the peer-review process by submitting their academic profiles for consideration.

Reviewers who contribute to the journal’s peer-review activities are acknowledged for their scholarly service while maintaining the confidentiality of individual review assignments.