Citedness in Scopus
Peer Review Process
Editorial & Review Policy
Peer-Review Process
Ilomata International Journal of Social Science applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and relevance of published articles.
DOUBLE-BLIND MIN. 2 REVIEWERS INDEPENDENT REVIEW
The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process to minimize bias and maintain objectivity.
Review Process
1
Initial Editorial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, basic submission requirements, originality, and compliance with the Author Guidelines. Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a handling editor.
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, basic submission requirements, originality, and compliance with the Author Guidelines. Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a handling editor.
2
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
3
Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewers assess the manuscript independently. Author and reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Reviewers assess the manuscript independently. Author and reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout the review process.
4
Revision
Authors must respond systematically to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript. Authors are generally given up to three weeks for revision.
Authors must respond systematically to reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript. Authors are generally given up to three weeks for revision.
5
Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or responsible editor makes the final decision based on reviewer reports, author revisions, scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical compliance.
The Editor-in-Chief or responsible editor makes the final decision based on reviewer reports, author revisions, scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical compliance.
Review Criteria
| ✓ Relevance to the journal's scope | ✓ Originality and novelty |
| ✓ Methodological rigor | ✓ Quality of analysis and findings |
| ✓ Contribution to the field | ✓ Quality and recency of references |
| ✓ Clarity of presentation | ✓ Publication ethics compliance |
Possible Editorial Decisions
| ACCEPT | MINOR REVISION | MAJOR REVISION | REJECT |
If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, an additional reviewer may be invited before a final decision is made.
Review Duration & Confidentiality
The journal aims to conduct peer review efficiently. The total review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related information are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.
| Review Model Double-Blind | Reviewers Minimum 2 | Revision Up to 3 Weeks | Final Decision Editorial Team |
Editorial Contact: For inquiries related to the peer-review process, please contact [email protected].
```
