At the International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Commerce and Social Sciences (IJHACSS), we believe that a fair, independent, and constructive editorial process is fundamental to academic publishing.

Every submitted manuscript undergoes a structured evaluation designed to assess scholarly originality, intellectual contribution, methodological or interpretative rigor, ethical integrity, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Our editorial process is guided by two complementary objectives: maintaining rigorous academic standards and supporting the development of meaningful scholarly contributions.

We recognize that research across the humanities, arts, commerce, and social sciences takes many forms. A philosophical argument, historical interpretation, literary analysis, qualitative interview study, economic investigation, or creative research project may require different approaches to evaluation.

Accordingly, IJHACSS does not impose a single experimental or statistical standard on all submissions. Instead, manuscripts are assessed according to the scholarly conventions and analytical requirements appropriate to their subject areas.

We aim to provide authors with clear editorial communication, constructive academic feedback, and a transparent path from manuscript submission to publication.

Every manuscript passes through a series of editorial stages.

Manuscript Submission → Initial Screening → Editorial Assessment → Reviewer Assignment → Double-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Revision (if required) → Final Decision → Production and Proofreading → Online Publication

The process includes the following principal steps:

1. Submission and acknowledgment.
2. Preliminary technical and ethical screening.
3. Assignment to an appropriate academic editor.
4. Editorial assessment of scholarly suitability.
5. Selection and invitation of independent reviewers.
6. External double-blind peer review.
7. Evaluation of reviewers' recommendations.
8. Communication of an editorial decision.
9. Manuscript revision and reassessment, where necessary.
10. Final acceptance or rejection.
11. Copyediting, formatting, and author proofreading.
12. Final online publication.

Not all manuscripts proceed through every stage. Manuscripts may be declined during initial editorial assessment or after external review.

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system.

The corresponding author is responsible for providing the manuscript and all necessary supporting information.

Submitted materials should include:

• A complete manuscript prepared according to the Author Guidelines.
• A separate title page containing author information.
• An anonymized manuscript suitable for double-blind peer review.
• A cover letter explaining the scholarly contribution.
• Accurate author affiliations and corresponding author details.
• Relevant declarations concerning originality, funding, conflicts of interest, and research ethics.
• Supplementary documents or research materials, where applicable.

After successful submission, the corresponding author should receive an acknowledgment and a manuscript identification number.

This identification number serves as the reference for subsequent correspondence and manuscript tracking.

Important: Submission of a manuscript does not imply acceptance or guarantee external peer review.

Following submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary screening to determine whether the manuscript satisfies the journal's basic requirements.

This is an administrative and academic quality check, not a substitute for external peer review.

What Do We Check?

Relevance to Journal Scope

Does the manuscript address a subject within humanities, arts, commerce, social sciences, or a relevant interdisciplinary area?

Manuscript Completeness

Are the title, abstract, keywords, main text, references, and required supporting documents included?

Formatting and Citation

Does the manuscript follow the prescribed formatting requirements and APA 7th edition reference style?

Originality

Does the submission appear to represent an original scholarly contribution rather than substantial unattributed reproduction of existing work?

Ethical Compliance

Are relevant statements concerning research participant protection, consent, funding, competing interests, and data availability included where applicable?

Anonymization

Has the manuscript been appropriately prepared for double-blind review?

Language and Readability

Is the manuscript sufficiently clear and organized to permit meaningful academic evaluation?

If minor documentation or formatting problems are identified, the manuscript may be returned to the author for correction.

Such a request does not ordinarily constitute rejection.

However, submissions that fall outside the journal's scope or demonstrate fundamental deficiencies may be declined at this stage.

Manuscripts that satisfy the preliminary requirements are assigned to a suitable academic editor.

The handling editor is selected according to subject expertise, academic experience, and the journal's editorial responsibilities.

For example, a manuscript examining educational inequality may be assigned to an editor specializing in education, sociology, or social policy.

A study on cultural heritage may require expertise in history, anthropology, archaeology, or cultural studies.

Research addressing international business, finance, or management may be assigned to an editor with relevant commerce or economic expertise.

Interdisciplinary manuscripts may require consultation with more than one subject specialist.

Responsibilities of the Handling Editor

The handling editor is responsible for:

• Evaluating the manuscript's scholarly suitability.
• Identifying appropriate subject experts.
• Managing the peer-review process.
• Considering potential reviewer conflicts of interest.
• Assessing reviewers' recommendations.
• Communicating recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.
• Evaluating revisions and determining whether further review is necessary.

The handling editor must maintain academic independence and avoid conflicts of interest.

Before inviting external reviewers, the handling editor examines the manuscript's academic relevance and potential contribution.

This stage determines whether the work is sufficiently developed to justify external peer review.

Key Questions

• Does the manuscript identify a meaningful scholarly problem?
• Does it present an original argument, finding, interpretation, or synthesis?
• Does it engage appropriately with relevant literature?
• Is the theoretical or analytical framework coherent?
• Are the methods or approaches appropriate to the research question?
• Are claims supported by appropriate evidence or reasoned argument?
• Does the manuscript offer a contribution relevant to IJHACSS readers?

For empirical studies, the editor may consider the suitability of the research design and analysis.

For humanities research, the emphasis may be on intellectual originality, source interpretation, argumentation, and critical engagement.

For arts-based research, the editor may consider the relationship between creative practice, scholarly documentation, reflection, and contribution to knowledge.

Possible Outcomes

A manuscript may proceed to external review, be returned for substantial preliminary improvement, or be declined without external review.

A decision to decline a manuscript at this stage is commonly referred to as an editorial or desk rejection.

Manuscripts selected for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate academic expertise.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their disciplinary knowledge, research experience, independence, and capacity to provide constructive evaluation.

The journal seeks to avoid assigning reviewers who have relationships or interests that could compromise their impartiality.

Reviewer Selection Principles

Academic Expertise

Reviewers should possess suitable knowledge of the manuscript's subject or methodological approach.

Independence

Reviewers should not have relevant personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest.

Constructive Evaluation

Reviewers should be capable of providing reasoned criticism and useful recommendations.

Interdisciplinary Balance

For manuscripts spanning multiple disciplines, the journal may invite reviewers with complementary areas of expertise.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must agree to protect unpublished manuscript information.

Authors may identify individuals they believe have relevant conflicts of interest. The editorial office will consider such requests while retaining responsibility for reviewer selection.

IJHACSS follows a double-blind peer-review model.

Under this system:

• Reviewers are not ordinarily informed of the authors' identities.
• Authors are not ordinarily informed of the reviewers' identities.
• Reviewers submit independent academic assessments.
• The handling editor evaluates reviewer recommendations and accompanying reasoning.

This system seeks to minimize bias related to academic status, institutional affiliation, geographical location, nationality, personal relationships, or other irrelevant factors.

Absolute anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when research topics, preprints, or previously circulated working papers may reveal an author's identity.

Nevertheless, reasonable measures are taken to preserve confidentiality and impartiality.

What Reviewers Are Asked to Evaluate

Reviewers consider:

• Originality and scholarly significance.
• Clarity of research objectives or central arguments.
• Adequacy of relevant literature.
• Theoretical and conceptual coherence.
• Methodological or interpretative appropriateness.
• Credibility of sources and supporting evidence.
• Quality of analysis and interpretation.
• Ethical compliance.
• Academic organization and clarity.
• Contribution to existing knowledge.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific, constructive, and professionally expressed feedback.

The objective is to improve scholarship while identifying manuscripts that meet the journal's publication standards.

Because IJHACSS publishes across several broad academic fields, peer-review criteria are adapted to different forms of scholarship.

9.1 Humanities and Philosophical Research

Manuscripts may be assessed on:

• Originality and clarity of argument.
• Coherence of philosophical reasoning.
• Engagement with theoretical debates.
• Appropriate interpretation of primary texts.
• Recognition of alternative perspectives.
• Contribution to intellectual understanding.

Such research is not required to include statistical findings or laboratory experiments.

9.2 Historical and Archival Research

Assessment may consider:

• Authenticity and provenance of historical sources.
• Accuracy of contextual interpretation.
• Appropriate engagement with existing historiography.
• Use of relevant archival documents and other primary evidence.
• Distinction between established facts and interpretative conclusions.
• Recognition of uncertainty and competing historical explanations.

9.3 Literature, Language, and Cultural Studies

Reviewers may examine the originality of textual interpretation, theoretical framework, cultural context, analytical depth, and contribution to literary or cultural scholarship.

9.4 Qualitative Social Science Research

Qualitative studies may be evaluated on:

• Appropriateness of the research design.
• Transparency of interviews, observations, or other data collection.
• Credibility of thematic or interpretative analysis.
• Ethical safeguards and confidentiality.
• Recognition of researcher positionality.
• Strength of evidence supporting conclusions.

Qualitative studies should not be rejected solely because they do not use large statistical samples or numerical hypothesis testing.

9.5 Quantitative Social Science Research

Quantitative studies may be assessed according to their research design, sampling procedures, measurement quality, statistical analysis, interpretation of findings, and acknowledgment of limitations.

9.6 Commerce, Economics, and Management Research

Evaluation may emphasize analytical rigor, quality of economic or organizational evidence, relevance of the conceptual framework, accuracy of interpretation, and contribution to business, economic, or management knowledge.

9.7 Arts and Practice-Based Research

Creative scholarship may be assessed through the originality of its artistic inquiry, documentation of creative processes, contextual interpretation, critical reflection, and contribution to scholarly or artistic understanding.

After completing their evaluations, reviewers submit their reports to the journal.

Review reports should identify significant strengths, concerns, and recommendations.

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's publication standards and requires no substantial further changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is academically sound but requires limited clarification, improved presentation, additional citations, or other specific corrections.

Major Revision

The manuscript has potential scholarly value but requires substantial improvement to its argument, research methods, analysis, interpretation, evidence, or organization.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic standards or contains fundamental deficiencies that cannot reasonably be corrected through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor after considering the substance of the reviews and the manuscript's overall academic quality.

Once the required reviews have been received, the handling editor evaluates the reports and prepares an editorial recommendation.

The editor does not treat peer review as a simple numerical vote.

For example, if one reviewer recommends acceptance while another identifies substantial methodological concerns, the editor must assess the importance and validity of those concerns.

Where necessary, an additional reviewer may be invited.

Final Decision Categories

Acceptance

The manuscript satisfies the journal's academic and editorial standards and is approved for publication, subject to completion of any remaining formalities.

Minor Revision Required

The author is requested to address specific concerns that can ordinarily be resolved without fundamental changes to the research.

Major Revision Required

The author must undertake substantial revision and provide a detailed explanation of the changes.

Rejection

The manuscript is not accepted for publication.

The corresponding author receives a formal decision communication together with relevant reviewer comments and editorial instructions, as appropriate.

Editorial decisions are independent of article processing charges.

When revision is requested, authors are expected to respond carefully and professionally to all substantive reviewer and editor comments.

Authors should submit:

1. A revised manuscript.
2. A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers.
3. A marked-up version showing changes, where requested.
4. Updated supporting materials, if applicable.

Preparing a Response to Reviewers

Each reviewer comment should be addressed individually.

Authors should explain what changes were made and identify the relevant sections or pages of the revised manuscript.

Where an author disagrees with a recommendation, a reasoned academic explanation may be provided.

Authors are not required to adopt every reviewer suggestion when they can justify an alternative scholarly approach.

However, substantial concerns regarding research integrity, methodological weaknesses, or unsupported conclusions must be adequately resolved.

Revision Deadlines

The applicable revision deadline will be communicated in the editorial decision letter.

As proposed operational guidance, minor revisions may ordinarily be allotted approximately two to four weeks, while major revisions may receive four to eight weeks, depending on the extent of work required.

Extensions may be requested when justified.

A revision invitation does not constitute acceptance.

Revised manuscripts are generally returned to the handling editor for reassessment.

The editor examines whether the revised manuscript adequately addresses the concerns raised during review.

Depending on the nature and extent of the changes, the editor may:

• Accept the revised manuscript.
• Request further clarification or revision.
• Return the manuscript to the original reviewers.
• Invite an additional reviewer.
• Reject the manuscript if important concerns remain unresolved.

Multiple rounds of review may be necessary when the research requires substantial clarification.

The journal seeks to avoid unnecessary review cycles while ensuring that manuscripts meet appropriate academic standards.

Final acceptance is issued only when the responsible editor determines that the manuscript satisfies the journal's scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements.

The corresponding author receives a formal acceptance notification.

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to publication preparation.

Authors may be asked to complete:

• Final manuscript submission.
• Copyright and licensing documentation.
• Author information verification.
• Outstanding ethical or publication declarations.
• Applicable article processing charge payment.
• Final production-related requirements.

Acceptance is based on academic merit and is never conditional upon paying a fee in advance of the editorial decision.

IJHACSS's proposed APC schedule is ₹2,000 for Indian authors and US$70 for non-Indian authors, payable only after formal acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts undergo editorial production to prepare them for online publication.

This stage may include:

Language and Copyediting

Improvement of grammar, punctuation, consistency, readability, and academic presentation without changing the intended scholarly meaning.

Reference Verification

Checking the consistency of in-text citations and references, including APA formatting.

Layout and Typesetting

Preparation of the manuscript according to the journal's publication format.

Tables and Figures

Checking figure captions, table numbering, image clarity, source acknowledgments, and relevant permissions.

Bibliographic Preparation

Verification of article titles, author names, affiliations, publication metadata, and other bibliographic details.

Digital Publication Preparation

Preparation of the article for presentation on the journal website and inclusion in the appropriate volume and issue.

Before publication, the corresponding author may receive a formatted proof of the accepted manuscript.

Authors should examine proofs carefully to identify:

• Typographical and formatting errors.
• Incorrect author names or affiliations.
• Missing or misplaced figures and tables.
• Errors in citations and references.
• Problems involving special characters, quotations, or non-English scripts.
• Inaccuracies in publication metadata.

Proof corrections should ordinarily be limited to production-related issues.

Substantial changes to the argument, methodology, data, findings, or authorship require editorial approval and may necessitate further assessment.

Authors are responsible for returning proof corrections within the deadline communicated by the production team.

Following completion of editorial and production requirements, accepted articles are prepared for online publication.

Published articles ordinarily contain:

• Full article title.
• Author names and institutional affiliations.
• Abstract and keywords.
• Complete article text.
• References.
• Tables and figures, where applicable.
• Journal volume and issue.
• Page range or article identifier.
• Publication date.
• Digital Object Identifier (DOI), when registered.
• Copyright and licensing information.

The article becomes available through the journal's website and may be included in the journal archives.

IJHACSS supports open access so that readers can consult published research without subscription fees.

The corresponding author may monitor manuscript progress through the online author dashboard.

Depending on the stage and configuration of the submission system, status labels may include:

The precise labels displayed may vary according to the journal's manuscript management system.

Authors are encouraged to use their assigned manuscript identification number when contacting the editorial office.

IJHACSS seeks to conduct editorial evaluations efficiently while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

The following are proposed operational targets.

These timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed.

Actual processing times may vary depending on:

• Manuscript complexity.
• Availability of qualified reviewers.
• Interdisciplinary requirements.
• Reviewer response times.
• Extent of revisions.
• Additional ethical or methodological assessments.
• Production requirements.

The journal prioritizes responsible academic evaluation over unnecessarily accelerated decisions.

Authors may contact the editorial office if an exceptional delay occurs.

IJHACSS is committed to protecting the academic independence of authors, reviewers, and editors.

Manuscripts are evaluated according to scholarly merit rather than personal agreement with their conclusions.

The journal welcomes evidence-based perspectives on contested topics, including political systems, religious practices, cultural traditions, economic policies, social inequality, gender relations, and historical interpretations.

A reviewer may legitimately challenge the strength of an argument, the relevance of evidence, or the adequacy of research methods.

However, rejection should not be recommended merely because a manuscript presents a reasoned interpretation that differs from the reviewer's personal ideological, political, religious, or philosophical position.

Academic criticism should address the scholarship rather than attack the scholar.

All participants in the peer-review process are expected to maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, circulate unpublished research, or use confidential information for personal benefit.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

They should identify suspected plagiarism, fabricated evidence, serious misrepresentation, unethical research practices, or other significant integrity concerns and communicate them confidentially to the handling editor.

Reviewers should not independently contact authors or third parties about confidential manuscripts without editorial authorization.

The use of external AI tools to process unpublished manuscript content is restricted by the journal's confidentiality and AI policies.

Reviewers must provide genuine independent scholarly assessments.

IJHACSS recognizes that authors may occasionally disagree with an editorial decision.

Authors may request reconsideration when they believe that a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, undisclosed conflict of interest, or demonstrable bias materially affected the decision.

Grounds for Appeal

An appeal may be considered when:

• A reviewer or editor misunderstood a significant part of the manuscript.
• A material factual error influenced the decision.
• Relevant evidence suggests a conflict of interest.
• The review procedure departed substantially from the journal's stated policies.
• An editorial decision appears to have relied on considerations unrelated to scholarly merit.

Simple disagreement with reviewers' opinions does not automatically justify an appeal.

Appeal Procedure

The corresponding author should submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, identifying the manuscript and clearly explaining the grounds for reconsideration.

The journal may arrange evaluation by a senior editor or an independent academic specialist who was not directly involved in the original decision.

The editorial office will communicate the outcome after considering the available evidence.

An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be reversed.

While an appeal remains active and the manuscript is still under consideration by IJHACSS, the authors must not simultaneously submit the manuscript elsewhere. Authors may instead withdraw the appeal and manuscript before pursuing another submission.

IJHACSS maintains a clear separation between scholarly decision-making and publication-related financial administration.

The journal does not offer guaranteed publication in exchange for payment.

No manuscript is accepted solely because its authors agree to pay an article processing charge.

Reviewers and editors must make their recommendations according to academic standards and the integrity of the research.

Any financial or professional conflicts that may influence editorial judgment must be disclosed and appropriately managed.

The publisher must not improperly interfere with the independent evaluation of manuscripts.

Peer review is an important quality-control mechanism, but scholarly discussion does not end with publication.

Readers may identify new evidence, propose alternative interpretations, raise methodological concerns, or challenge conclusions presented in published articles.

IJHACSS encourages constructive post-publication discussion.

Where appropriate, authors may respond to scholarly criticism through letters, commentaries, corrections, or other approved publication formats.

Significant errors or ethical concerns may result in editorial investigation and, where justified, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.

Differences in scholarly interpretation alone do not constitute research misconduct.

Authors seeking clarification about manuscript submission, editorial screening, reviewer assessment, revisions, decisions, or publication procedures are encouraged to contact the editorial office.

International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Commerce and Social Sciences (IJHACSS)

Editorial Email: editor@ijhacss.com

Support Email: support@ijhacss.com

Website: https://khaki-starling-459600.hostingersite.com/

Author Portal: https://khaki-starling-459600.hostingersite.com/author/login

Our Commitment

We believe that the purpose of peer review extends beyond deciding which manuscripts are published. A responsible editorial process should strengthen scholarship, encourage intellectual development, promote methodological and interpretative rigor, and provide researchers with a fair opportunity to contribute to academic knowledge.

Through independent editorial assessment, double-blind peer review, transparent communication, and respect for disciplinary diversity, IJHACSS seeks to maintain a credible and supportive scholarly publishing environment.

IJHACSS — Promoting Academic Integrity, Independent Evaluation, and Excellence in Interdisciplinary Scholarship.