EDITORIAL POLICIES

Peer Review Process

Journal of Social Theory and Research utilises a process in which both authors and reviewers are unknown when articles are reviewed. The duration of review is between one to two (1-2) weeks, depending on the reviewer. They are required to bring formative information, even when a paper is not fit for publication. The general editorial duty is on the editors-in-chief.

Collections for the journal are stated below:

  1. The editors generally assess the quality and fitness with the scope of the journal when a manuscript is brought in.
  2. If satisfied with the quality and fitness, the manuscript is sent to two reviewers
  3. Authors shall be duly informed about the editors’ decision upon receipt from the reviewers
  4. The editorial board can forward their personal works to the journal. Where a writer has a connection to the journal, he/she is relieved of the duties concerning that work, while someone else shall be made to conduct peer review.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers shall thoroughly read the article and comment on the following:

  1. Originality
  2. Analysis
  3. Soundness
  4. Structure and clarity
  5. Language
  6. Relevance

Overall Recommendation

Reviewers are to give a general suggestion for future processing stage of the manuscript thus:

  • Accept in Present Form: The work may be collected without any changes.
  • Accept after Minor Revisions: The work may be collected after amendment depending on the critic’s observation. Writers usually have five days for little amendment.
  • Reconsider after Major Revisions: Collecting the work rests on the amendment. The writer has to give step by step answer or defence if some of the critic’s observation cannot be amended. Main rewriting of each work is done at most twice. Writers shall resend their                 re-written works in ten days and the re-written edition will be taken back to the critic for more observation. If the needed re-writing time is calculated to exceed 2 months, it shall be suggested for writers to take back their work and then return them at a later date in order to avoid needless time pressure, as well as to make certain that every work is well amended.
  • Reject: When any work has main defects or adds no fresh part, it could be turned down with no more access to the journal.

Note that individual suggestions are only seen by the editors.

ORCID

Writers who send their work should register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) as it gives a special and unchanging digital identifier for the account that enables correct attribution and improves the discoverability of published works, making so that the real writers get acknowledged for their work. Corresponding writers should add an ORCID when sending writers’ data; while co-writers are suggested to add one.

General Guidelines for Editors

 

The following should serve as a guide to reviewers as they are expected to look at :

 

The appropriateness of the title in relation to the content of the article.
 

How apt the abstract is and its inclusiveness

 

Was the method and material suitable and procedure used detailed.

Appropriateness of the statistical tests used.

Did the author discuss his finding in relation with previous works?

Was the conclusions and recommendation derived from the work?

 

Has the work an Introduction that is captivating and concise.
 

Did the author adhere to the Journal APA style of referencing?

 

Ethical Obligations of an Editor:

  1. Provide impartial attention to every work for publication based on its own merits.
  2. Examine works sent for publication with urgency and attention. It is the main duty of the editor to receive or turn down any work. Works shall be turned down without correction if deemed out of place for the journal.
  3. The editorial team should not divulge data about any work being observed to anyone except those from whom expert opinion is sought.
  4. Respect the intellectual independence of writers.

These are some of the general and ethical guideline editors and even reviewers should follow to achieve the quality output of a research paper.