Purpose

The Insights–Journal of Life and Social Sciences (IJLSS) uses a structured double-blind peer-review process to assess the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts.

Under the double-blind model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another as far as reasonably possible. Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations and compliance with the journal’s policies.

The peer-review process is informed by accepted publication-ethics principles, including guidance for ethical peer review and editorial independence. Reference to international frameworks does not imply formal membership or accreditation unless expressly stated.

Principles of Peer Review

The peer-review process is guided by the following principles:

Academic Merit

Manuscripts are evaluated on the quality and relevance of their scholarly content without discrimination based on the authors’ nationality, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, political views or personal background.

Independence and Impartiality

Editors and reviewers must make objective decisions and must not allow personal, institutional, commercial or professional interests to influence the review process.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not:

Share manuscripts with unauthorized persons;
Disclose unpublished information;
Use manuscript content for personal or professional advantage;
Upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized third-party systems or artificial-intelligence tools.

Constructive Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to provide respectful, evidence-based and constructive comments that help authors improve the quality, accuracy and presentation of their work.

Accountability

Editorial decisions are supported by reviewer reports, editorial assessment and the journal’s academic and ethical requirements. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized academic editor.

Peer-Review Process

Step 1: Submission and Administrative Screening

After a manuscript is submitted through the online portal, the editorial office checks:

Completeness of the submission;
Required forms and declarations;
Manuscript format and organization;
Author and affiliation details;
Compliance with basic author instructions;
Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
Similarity-screening results;
Ethical approval and consent information, where applicable.

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the corresponding author for correction.

A manuscript may be declined at this stage if it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks essential documentation or does not meet minimum submission requirements.

Step 2: Preliminary Editorial Assessment

A suitable editor evaluates the manuscript for:

Relevance to the journal;
Originality;
Clarity of the research question;
Scientific or scholarly significance;
Appropriateness of the methodology;
Ethical compliance;
Quality of language and presentation;
Suitability for external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s minimum scholarly, ethical or reporting standards may be declined without external review.

Step 3: Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts approved for peer review are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

Reviewers may be selected on the basis of:

Academic qualifications;
Research and publication experience;
Knowledge of the manuscript’s subject area;
Methodological expertise;
Previous review performance;
Absence of conflicts of interest.

A third reviewer may be appointed where the initial recommendations differ substantially or additional specialist assessment is required.

Step 4: Reviewer Invitation and Conflict Check

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must confirm that:

They have appropriate expertise;
They can complete the review within the requested period;
They have no financial, institutional, professional or personal conflict of interest;
They can assess the manuscript objectively;
They will maintain confidentiality.

Reviewers should decline the invitation where a conflict exists or where they cannot provide an impartial and competent assessment.

Step 5: Double-Blind Review

Reviewers receive an anonymized manuscript and a structured review form.

They are asked to assess:

Originality and Significance

Whether the manuscript addresses a relevant question;
Whether it contributes new knowledge or interpretation;
Whether its findings are important to the field.

Methodological Quality

Appropriateness of the study design;
Clarity of methods;
Suitability of sampling and data collection;
Accuracy of statistical or analytical procedures;
Reproducibility of the research;
Appropriateness of instruments and outcome measures.

Results and Interpretation

Accuracy and clarity of the results;
Consistency between results and conclusions;
Appropriate acknowledgment of study limitations;
Absence of unsupported claims or overinterpretation.

Literature and Referencing

Relevance and adequacy of cited literature;
Appropriate integration of previous research;
Accuracy and consistency of references;
Compliance with the journal’s referencing requirements.

Ethical Compliance

Presence of ethical approval where required;
Appropriate informed-consent reporting;
Protection of confidentiality;
Ethical treatment of human participants or animals;
Disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest.

Language and Presentation

Logical organization;
Clarity and readability;
Appropriate academic language;
Quality of tables and figures;
Consistent terminology;
Completeness of reporting.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the assessment, reviewers may recommend:

Accept without revision
The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.
Minor revision
Limited corrections or clarifications are required.
Major revision
Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Resubmit for further review
The manuscript requires extensive revision and another full evaluation.
Reject
The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of significant academic, methodological, ethical or scope-related concerns.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the assigned editor, Editor-in-Chief or another authorized academic editor.

Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewer reports, the editor evaluates:

The reviewers’ comments;
The consistency and strength of their recommendations;
The manuscript’s academic merit;
Its ethical and methodological quality;
Its relevance to the journal;
Any concerns identified during editorial assessment.

The corresponding author receives:

The editorial decision;
Anonymized reviewer comments;
Instructions for revision, where applicable;
A deadline for submitting the revised manuscript.

Where reviewer reports conflict, the editor may:

Seek clarification from the reviewers;
Obtain an additional independent review;
Conduct a further editorial assessment;
Consult a subject or methodology expert.

Revision Process

Authors asked to revise a manuscript should submit:

A revised manuscript;
A point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments;
A clear explanation of each change made;
Page and line references showing where revisions were introduced;
A reasoned response where a recommendation was not followed;
Updated ethical, authorship or disclosure documents where necessary.

The revised manuscript may be:

Reassessed by the editor;
Returned to the original reviewers;
Sent to additional reviewers;
Accepted, returned for further revision or rejected.

More than one revision round may be required.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Final Decision

The final decision may be:

Acceptance;
Further revision;
Rejection.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor makes the final decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and compliance with journal policies.

The publisher, sponsors, advertisers or payment of publication charges do not influence the final editorial decision.

Review Time

The journal normally aims to complete external peer review within two to three weeks.

This period is indicative and may vary depending on:

Reviewer availability;
Complexity of the manuscript;
Need for specialist or statistical review;
Number of revision rounds;
Ethical or authorship concerns;
Responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed decision date.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Accept assignments only within their area of expertise;
Declare conflicts of interest;
Maintain confidentiality;
Provide objective and constructive comments;
Evaluate the manuscript fairly;
Submit the review within the agreed period;
Identify unsupported claims or methodological weaknesses;
Report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification or duplicate publication;
Avoid personal, insulting or discriminatory remarks;
Recommend additional references only where scientifically relevant.

Reviewers must not:

Use unpublished information for personal benefit;
Share the manuscript with others without permission;
Contact the authors directly;
Delegate the review without editorial approval;
Require citation of their own work for personal advantage;
upload the manuscript to public or third-party artificial-intelligence systems.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline an assignment where they:

Have a close personal or professional relationship with an author;
Have recently collaborated with an author;
Have a direct academic or commercial interest in the research;
Are involved in competing work that could affect impartiality;
Have an institutional conflict;
Cannot provide an objective review.

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists. Another qualified editor will be assigned.

Confidentiality of Reviewer Identity

Reviewer identities are treated as confidential under the journal’s double-blind review model.

Reviewer names will not ordinarily be disclosed to authors or published with the article. Disclosure may occur only where:

The reviewer has expressly agreed to an open-review arrangement;
Disclosure is required by law;
An authorized investigation into publication misconduct requires limited disclosure;
The journal determines that disclosure is necessary to protect research integrity.

Peer-review reports and editorial correspondence are retained as part of the journal’s confidential editorial record.

Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

Reviewers should inform the editor where they suspect:

Plagiarism;
Duplicate or redundant publication;
Fabrication or falsification of data;
Image manipulation;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
Authorship misconduct;
Absence of required ethical approval;
Inadequate informed consent;
Unethical research involving humans or animals;
Misleading or selective reporting.

Reviewers should provide sufficient detail to allow the editor to evaluate the concern but should not investigate the authors independently.

The journal may request supporting documents, suspend the review process, seek institutional clarification or take other appropriate editorial action.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal may provide reviewers with:

A certificate of peer-review contribution;
An acknowledgement letter;
Confirmation of completed reviews;
Recognition through approved reviewer-services platforms, where available and requested.

Reviewer recognition must not compromise the confidentiality of manuscripts or authors.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that:

A significant factual or methodological misunderstanding occurred;
Reviewer comments were inappropriate or unsupported;
A procedural error affected the decision;
A declared conflict of interest was not appropriately managed.

An appeal must:

Be submitted in writing;
Clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration;
Address the academic reasons for the decision;
Avoid personal allegations or abusive language;
Include supporting evidence where applicable.

Appeals are reviewed by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision, where reasonably possible. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, confidentiality or editorial procedure are handled according to the journal’s complaints and appeals policy.

Peer-Review Records

The journal retains appropriate records of:

Reviewer invitations;
Conflict-of-interest declarations;
Reviewer reports;
Editorial decisions;
Author responses;
Revised manuscripts;
Relevant ethical correspondence.

These records support transparency, accountability and investigation of any future concerns while remaining subject to the journal’s confidentiality and data-protection policies.

Insights-Journal of Life and Social Sciences

Peer Review Policy