The EPH - International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS) upholds ethical review standards consistent with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), global research integrity frameworks, and responsible academic publishing norms.

Peer review is the cornerstone of academic credibility. Reviewers serve as independent subject experts responsible for ensuring the rigor, originality, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.

1. Peer Review Model

• Author identities are concealed from reviewers.
• Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
• Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
• Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and academic merit.

The review process is conducted transparently, fairly, and without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal beliefs.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

2.1 Academic Integrity

• Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit.
• Assess theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, and practical relevance.
• Avoid personal bias or ideological influence.

2.2 Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are confidential intellectual property. Reviewers must:

• Not share, distribute, or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized parties.
• Not use unpublished data for personal research or professional gain.
• Securely delete manuscript files after review completion.

Confidentiality obligations extend beyond the review period.

3. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Reviewers must immediately decline review invitations if conflicts of interest exist, including:

• Direct collaboration with authors within the past three years.
• Institutional affiliation overlap.
• Financial interests or funding relationships.
• Competitive academic or commercial interests.
• Personal relationships that may compromise impartiality.

All potential conflicts must be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief before proceeding.

4. Ethical Vigilance and Research Misconduct

Reviewers are expected to actively safeguard publication ethics by identifying potential misconduct, including:

• Plagiarism or substantial similarity.
• Data fabrication or falsification.
• Manipulated images, tables, or statistical outputs.
• Redundant publication or salami slicing.
• Undisclosed AI-generated content affecting research integrity.
• Citation manipulation or coercive citation practices.
• Ethical violations in human subject research.

Any concerns must be reported confidentially to the editorial office and not directly to authors.

5. Advanced Evaluation Standards

5.1 Theoretical Contribution

• Clear research gap identification.
• Advancement of existing theory.
• Contribution to humanities and social science scholarship.

5.2 Methodological Rigor

• Appropriate research design.
• Valid data collection methods.
• Robust qualitative or quantitative analysis.
• Replicability and transparency.

5.3 Practical and Societal Implications

• Academic relevance.
• Policy or societal impact (where applicable).

5.4 Literature and Referencing Standards

• Use of high-quality, peer-reviewed sources.
• Inclusion of recent scholarly literature.
• Balanced and ethical citation practices.

5.5 Clarity and Scholarly Communication

• Logical structure.
• Clear argument development.
• Professional academic writing.

6. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

• Not upload manuscripts to AI platforms or third-party tools.
• Not use generative AI tools in a way that compromises confidentiality.
• Ensure AI-assisted editing does not alter intellectual integrity.

7. Timeliness and Professional Conduct

• Reviews must be completed within the assigned timeline (typically 6–7 weeks).
• Extensions should be requested promptly when necessary.
• Maintain professional and respectful communication.

Failure to meet deadlines without notice may result in removal from the reviewer panel.

8. Decision Recommendations

• Accept without revision.
• Minor revision.
• Major revision.
• Reject.

All recommendations must be supported by detailed, evidence-based justification.

9. Accountability and Transparency

• Removal from reviewer database.
• Reporting to affiliated institutions (in severe cases).
• Notification to relevant academic bodies.

10. Commitment to Excellence

By participating in the peer review process, reviewers contribute to maintaining international publication standards, enhancing research credibility, and supporting ethical scholarly communication.

The EPH - International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS) recognizes reviewers as essential partners in safeguarding academic quality and advancing global research standards.