The EPH - International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research in humanities and social science disciplines, including sociology, political science, economics, education, psychology, history, and related fields.

The journal is committed to maintaining academic integrity, fairness, and confidentiality throughout the review cycle.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor.

During this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with author guidelines
• Academic quality and clarity
• Plagiarism screening (similarity check)
• Ethical compliance

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s standards may be desk rejected without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

The EPH - International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS) follows a strict double-blind peer review model to ensure fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Under this system, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process. This approach minimizes potential bias related to author reputation, institutional affiliation, nationality, or personal relationships, ensuring that manuscripts are assessed solely on their scholarly merit.

To maintain anonymity, authors are required to submit manuscripts without names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or any identifying information in the main document. A separate title page containing complete author details must be provided during submission. Reviewers are also expected to maintain strict confidentiality and must not attempt to identify the authors or disclose their own identities in review comments.

Each manuscript is evaluated independently by qualified subject experts who provide objective, evidence-based feedback along with a structured recommendation. Based on the reviewers’ reports and the overall academic quality of the submission, the final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

The journal maintains a selective acceptance policy, with an average acceptance rate of 28% to 30%, reflecting its commitment to publishing high-quality, original, and impactful research. The double-blind peer review model serves as a cornerstone of the journal’s dedication to transparency, impartiality, and rigorous scholarly standards.

3. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

All recommendations must be supported by detailed comments.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment.

4. Revision Stage

If revisions are requested:

• Authors must respond to each reviewer comment systematically
• A revised manuscript must be submitted within the specified timeframe
• Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation

Failure to submit revisions within the deadline may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

5. Final Decision

Once the manuscript satisfies reviewer and editorial requirements, a final acceptance decision is issued.

The editorial decision is final and based solely on scholarly merit, ethical standards, and relevance to the journal.

6. Publication Process

After acceptance:

• The manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting
• Authors may receive proofs for final approval
• The article is scheduled for publication in the upcoming issue

7. Ethical Safeguards

Throughout the review process, the journal ensures:

• Strict confidentiality of submissions
• Conflict of interest management
• Ethical oversight of research misconduct
• Transparency in editorial decisions

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate submission, or unethical research practices.

8. Review Timeline

While timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, the typical process is:

• Initial Screening: 3–7 days
• Peer Review: 2–4 weeks
• Revision Period: 1–3 weeks
• Final Decision: Within 6–8 weeks (average)

The journal strives to ensure timely and efficient processing without compromising review quality.

9. Commitment to Quality

The EPH - International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS) is dedicated to:

• Upholding international publication ethics standards
• Ensuring fairness and objectivity
• Supporting authors through constructive feedback
• Maintaining transparency and academic rigor

The peer review process serves as a cornerstone for ensuring the credibility, reliability, and scholarly impact of published research.