At the International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Commerce and Social Sciences (IJHACSS), we regard peer review as an essential part of responsible academic publishing. Its purpose is not simply to determine whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected, but also to strengthen scholarly arguments, improve research quality, encourage critical inquiry, and promote the responsible dissemination of knowledge.

Research in the humanities, arts, commerce, and social sciences encompasses diverse intellectual traditions and methodological approaches. A historical investigation, philosophical argument, literary interpretation, ethnographic study, economic analysis, or artistic research project cannot always be evaluated using identical criteria.

Our peer-review framework therefore combines rigorous academic assessment with sensitivity to disciplinary differences.

We encourage reviewers to engage thoughtfully with manuscripts, identify their scholarly contributions, evaluate the quality of evidence and reasoning, and provide constructive suggestions that help authors improve their work.

Our central principle is that manuscripts should be judged on the strength of their scholarship, not on the reputation, identity, institutional affiliation, or personal viewpoints of their authors.

The journal seeks to maintain a peer-review environment characterized by independence, fairness, confidentiality, academic freedom, intellectual diversity, and professional respect.

IJHACSS follows a double-blind peer-review system.

Under this approach, the identities of authors are ordinarily concealed from reviewers, while reviewer identities remain confidential to authors.

This arrangement is intended to reduce potential bias associated with institutional prestige, academic seniority, geographical location, nationality, gender, personal relationships, and other factors unrelated to scholarly quality.

Why Double-Blind Review Matters

A researcher working at a relatively small college should receive the same fair academic consideration as a researcher affiliated with an internationally recognized university.

Similarly, the arguments of an emerging scholar should be evaluated with the same seriousness as those of an established academic.

We recognize that anonymity cannot always be guaranteed. In highly specialized research, reviewers may recognize a manuscript through its subject matter, previously circulated working papers, archival projects, or preprints.

Nevertheless, careful anonymization helps create a fairer assessment environment.

Author Anonymity Requirements

Authors should submit a manuscript prepared for anonymous review.

The review copy should exclude:

• Author names and institutional affiliations.
• Acknowledgments revealing author identities.
• Email addresses and personal contact details.
• Unnecessary identifying information in headers, footers, and document properties.
• Explicitly identifying references to the authors' previous work.

Authors should cite their own published research appropriately without unnecessarily revealing authorship.

A separate title page containing author information should be submitted according to the journal's Author Guidelines.

Complete anonymity may be difficult for particular historical, artistic, or community-based projects. Authors should preserve the scholarly integrity of their work while taking reasonable steps to avoid disclosing their identities unnecessarily.

Every manuscript undergoes preliminary editorial evaluation before being considered for external peer review.

The editorial office assesses whether the submission meets the journal's basic academic and administrative requirements.

The screening process considers:

1. Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
2. Completeness of manuscript documentation.
3. Originality and apparent scholarly contribution.
4. Appropriate academic language and presentation.
5. Compliance with submission and formatting requirements.
6. Adherence to publication ethics.
7. Presence of necessary ethical declarations and permissions.
8. Suitability for external academic review.

Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical corrections before further evaluation.

A manuscript may also be declined without external peer review when it falls outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly substance, presents serious ethical concerns, or does not meet minimum editorial standards.

Initial screening is not a final judgment on the wider intellectual value of a research topic. It determines whether the submitted work is suitable for consideration by the journal.

Manuscripts selected for external review are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, research experience, disciplinary knowledge, and ability to provide informed and impartial assessments.

Where possible, the journal seeks reviewers who are independent of the authors and who are not directly involved in the submitted research.

Reviewers may be drawn from universities, research institutions, scholarly organizations, and relevant academic or professional communities.

Reviewers are ordinarily selected from outside the journal's editorial decision-making team for the particular manuscript.

Interdisciplinary Reviewer Selection

A manuscript examining the relationship between digital technology, social behaviour, and commercial development may require expertise in more than one discipline.

Similarly, research integrating history, cultural studies, political science, and sociology may benefit from reviewers representing complementary scholarly traditions.

For interdisciplinary manuscripts, the journal may appoint reviewers from different fields to ensure that the manuscript receives an appropriately balanced evaluation.

Where the first two reviews identify substantially different issues or provide conflicting recommendations, the handling editor may seek an additional independent assessment.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not replace the judgment of the responsible editor.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to their academic merits and the research standards appropriate to their disciplines.

The principal assessment criteria are outlined below.

5.1 Originality and Scholarly Contribution

Does the manuscript offer an original insight, interpretation, argument, empirical finding, theoretical contribution, or critical synthesis?

Originality does not necessarily require the discovery of entirely new facts.

In humanities and social sciences scholarship, originality may arise from:

• New interpretations of existing texts or historical materials.
• Critical reassessment of established theories.
• Application of existing concepts to new social contexts.
• Investigation of previously neglected communities or experiences.
• Development of innovative analytical frameworks.
• Integration of perspectives from different disciplines.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript advances scholarly understanding in a meaningful way.

5.2 Relevance and Academic Significance

Does the manuscript address a question that is relevant to the journal's scope and contributes to an ongoing scholarly discussion?

Research should demonstrate clear academic significance, whether through theoretical advancement, empirical investigation, social understanding, cultural interpretation, or practical implications.

5.3 Clarity of Research Questions and Objectives

The manuscript should clearly communicate the central problem, research question, hypothesis, or intellectual argument.

The purpose of the research should be understandable, even where the manuscript follows a nontraditional or discipline-specific structure.

5.4 Engagement with Existing Scholarship

Authors should demonstrate familiarity with relevant academic literature and engage critically with existing research.

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript adequately acknowledges important theories, findings, debates, and competing interpretations.

The literature review should contribute to the development of the argument rather than merely present a collection of citations.

5.5 Methodological or Interpretative Rigor

The research approach should be appropriate to the nature of the investigation.

For empirical studies, reviewers may assess the research design, sampling approach, data collection, analysis, and limitations.

For historical, philosophical, literary, or interpretative studies, reviewers should consider the clarity of the analytical framework, consistency of reasoning, and appropriateness of source interpretation.

Reviewers should not require experimental procedures or statistical analysis when these are not appropriate to the research question.

5.6 Quality of Evidence and Reasoning

Arguments should be supported by relevant evidence, sound reasoning, credible sources, or transparent analytical procedures.

Reviewers should examine whether the conclusions follow logically from the evidence presented.

Alternative interpretations and relevant limitations should be considered where appropriate.

5.7 Organization and Presentation

The manuscript should be logically organized, clearly written, and understandable to its intended scholarly readership.

Reviewers may recommend changes to the structure, terminology, organization, tables, illustrations, or presentation of arguments.

Minor language or formatting problems should be distinguished from substantive weaknesses in academic quality.

5.8 Ethical Compliance

Reviewers should identify potential concerns involving plagiarism, inappropriate attribution, research participant protection, conflicts of interest, questionable data, misleading representations, or unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted materials.

Suspected ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the handling editor.

IJHACSS recognizes that different forms of scholarship require different approaches to evaluation.

6.1 Humanities Research

Manuscripts in history, philosophy, literature, linguistics, cultural studies, and related fields may be evaluated on:

• Originality of interpretation.
• Strength and coherence of argument.
• Appropriate engagement with primary and secondary sources.
• Historical, textual, or theoretical accuracy.
• Awareness of alternative scholarly perspectives.
• Contribution to disciplinary knowledge.

The absence of statistical data should not be considered a weakness in research that is primarily philosophical, historical, or interpretative.

6.2 Qualitative Social Science Research

Research employing interviews, ethnography, participant observation, focus groups, discourse analysis, case studies, or narrative inquiry should be assessed according to the standards appropriate to qualitative investigation.

Relevant considerations may include:

• Appropriateness of participant selection.
• Transparency of data collection.
• Reflexivity and researcher positionality.
• Credibility of interpretation.
• Adequacy of supporting quotations or observations.
• Ethical treatment of participants.
• Recognition of contextual limitations.

Qualitative research should not be rejected simply because it does not use numerical hypothesis testing or large statistical samples.

6.3 Quantitative Social Science Research

Quantitative research should be assessed for methodological appropriateness, sound measurement, suitable statistical techniques, transparency of analysis, and reasonable interpretation of findings.

Reviewers may examine sampling procedures, analytical assumptions, uncertainty, limitations, and whether conclusions are justified by the available data.

6.4 Commerce, Economics, and Management Research

Research in commerce, accounting, economics, finance, marketing, and management should be evaluated on its conceptual or empirical significance, analytical rigor, appropriate use of evidence, and contribution to scholarly or professional understanding.

Reviewers should distinguish carefully between evidence-based findings, theoretical interpretations, practical recommendations, and speculative commercial claims.

6.5 Historical and Archival Research

Historical research may rely on archival documents, manuscripts, government reports, newspapers, correspondence, oral histories, photographs, and other historical materials.

Reviewers should assess:

• Reliability and provenance of sources.
• Historical context.
• Accuracy of interpretation.
• Engagement with existing historiography.
• Appropriate acknowledgment of uncertainty.
• Distinction between documentary evidence and scholarly inference.

6.6 Arts and Practice-Based Research

Artistic and practice-based scholarship may include visual arts, performance, music, theatre, film, design, and other forms of creative inquiry.

Reviewers should consider the originality of the practice, clarity of the research purpose, quality of documentation, critical reflection, and contribution to artistic or academic knowledge.

Creative research should not be disadvantaged merely because its outcomes differ from conventional empirical research.

IJHACSS supports scholarly independence and the open examination of diverse intellectual perspectives.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts according to the quality of scholarship rather than agreement with the author's conclusions.

Research addressing religion, politics, history, gender, inequality, economic policy, culture, or other contested subjects should receive impartial evaluation.

A manuscript should not be recommended for rejection merely because it questions prevailing theories, challenges established institutions, or presents conclusions different from a reviewer's personal beliefs.

However, academic freedom does not exempt authors from the requirements of accurate evidence, ethical conduct, responsible argumentation, and appropriate scholarly citation.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish weaknesses in reasoning from legitimate differences in theoretical perspective.

Constructive academic disagreement is a valuable component of peer review.

Reviewers are expected to undertake their responsibilities with professionalism, independence, and respect for scholarly integrity.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or publicly discuss unpublished material without appropriate editorial authorization.

Unpublished arguments, findings, interpretations, archival discoveries, and creative materials must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

Objectivity

Reviews must be impartial, evidence-based, and professionally expressed.

Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and hostile language are unacceptable.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewers should identify major strengths and weaknesses and explain their recommendations clearly.

Where possible, reviewers should provide suggestions that help authors strengthen the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts before accepting an assignment.

Such conflicts may involve personal relationships, recent collaborations, professional competition, institutional connections, financial interests, or other circumstances affecting impartiality.

Professional Responsibility

Reviewers should accept invitations only when they possess suitable expertise and have adequate time to complete the assessment.

They should inform the editorial office promptly if they become unable to complete an accepted review.

Citation Integrity

Reviewers should recommend additional references only when they are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Coercive citation practices, unnecessary self-citation requests, and attempts to manipulate citation metrics are prohibited.

IJHACSS aims to maintain an efficient peer-review process without compromising academic quality.

As a proposed operational target, reviewers may ordinarily be requested to submit their assessments within two to three weeks after accepting the review invitation.

Actual review periods may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, interdisciplinary requirements, and the need for additional assessments.

The journal does not guarantee a fixed decision date.

Authors are encouraged to monitor manuscript status through the online submission system.

Where substantial delays occur, the editorial office may contact reviewers, appoint alternative reviewers, or take other appropriate action.

A timely decision is important, but editorial speed must not take precedence over the quality and fairness of evaluation.

After receiving the review reports, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript in light of the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's standards.

The following decisions may be issued.

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and requires no substantial further revision.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited changes involving presentation, explanation, citation, clarification, or other specific matters.

Major Revision

The manuscript presents a potentially meaningful contribution but requires significant improvements to its argument, theoretical framework, methodology, analysis, evidence, or organization.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards, falls outside its scope, raises unresolved serious ethical concerns, or contains deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

A recommendation for revision does not guarantee subsequent acceptance.

Final editorial responsibility rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

Differences between reviewers are expected, particularly in interdisciplinary and interpretative scholarship.

One reviewer may consider a theoretical contribution significant while another may identify substantial limitations in the argument or methodology.

Where reviewers disagree, the handling editor should examine the reasons supporting each assessment rather than simply count recommendations.

Additional review may be requested when necessary.

The editor may also seek clarification from existing reviewers or consult an independent subject expert.

The final decision should reflect a reasoned evaluation of scholarly merit, supported by the available review reports and editorial judgment.

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond carefully to reviewers' and editors' comments.

A revised submission should normally include:

1. The revised manuscript.
2. A point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
3. A version showing changes, where requested.
4. Updated tables, figures, or supporting documentation, where applicable.

Authors should explain how each substantive concern has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a recommendation, they may provide a respectful, academically reasoned response.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional experts.

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

Authors may request an extension when justified by the scope of the required revisions.

IJHACSS recognizes the importance of supporting researchers at different stages of their academic careers.

Early-career researchers, doctoral scholars, independent researchers, and academics working in institutions with limited research resources deserve fair and thoughtful consideration.

Promising manuscripts may contain shortcomings in organization, language, theoretical explanation, or presentation that can be improved through constructive feedback.

Reviewers are therefore encouraged to distinguish between correctable weaknesses and fundamental scholarly deficiencies.

The journal encourages detailed and practical recommendations where improvement is feasible.

However, supportive peer review does not mean lowering academic standards or accepting manuscripts that fail to demonstrate sufficient intellectual quality.

Our objective is to encourage stronger scholarship while maintaining the credibility of the published literature.

If a reviewer identifies possible plagiarism, fabricated evidence, manipulated data, misleading quotations, unethical research procedures, or other serious concerns, these should be communicated confidentially to the handling editor.

Reviewers should provide specific evidence or explain the basis of their concerns where possible.

Reviewers should not independently contact the author's institution, research participants, or third parties concerning suspected misconduct without editorial authorization.

The editorial office will evaluate reported concerns according to the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to provide clarification where appropriate.

Editorial action may include requesting additional documentation, temporarily suspending evaluation, seeking expert advice, or rejecting the manuscript where justified.

Allegations should not be treated as established misconduct without appropriate consideration of the evidence.

IJHACSS expects responsible and transparent use of artificial intelligence in editorial assessment.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished arguments, participant information, or restricted research materials to external generative AI services without explicit journal authorization and appropriate safeguards.

AI-generated reports must not replace independent scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and substance of the assessments they submit.

Automated tools may assist with legitimate technical or administrative tasks under an approved journal policy, but they must not compromise confidentiality, data protection, or editorial independence.

The journal may ask reviewers to disclose substantial AI assistance in preparing their reports.

Manuscripts submitted for thematic or special issues must meet the same academic and ethical standards as regular submissions.

Guest editors may coordinate the scholarly assessment of contributions within their subject area.

However, guest editors must declare relevant conflicts of interest and ensure that manuscripts receive appropriate independent assessment.

An invitation to contribute to a special issue does not constitute a guarantee of publication.

Editorials, letters, book reviews, and certain other non-research contributions may undergo editorial assessment rather than the standard external peer-review procedure.

The journal should identify the review status of published contributions accurately.

Editors and reviewers must remain independent of inappropriate financial, institutional, personal, and professional influence.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board or persons closely associated with the journal must be handled by an editor who does not have a relevant conflict.

The handling editor must not use the review process to promote personal interests, favor particular institutions, or suppress legitimate academic viewpoints.

Commercial considerations, including article processing charges, must remain separate from decisions about scholarly quality.

The journal does not accept payment in exchange for favorable peer-review reports or guaranteed manuscript acceptance.

Authors have the right to expect fair and professionally conducted evaluation.

Authors may:

• Receive an editorial decision with appropriate explanation.
• Obtain relevant reviewer comments when external review has taken place.
• Respond to requests for clarification and revision.
• Provide reasoned explanations when disagreeing with recommendations.
• Report potential conflicts of interest or procedural concerns.
• Submit an appeal according to the journal's editorial policy.

Authors should treat reviewer comments professionally and respond constructively, even when they disagree with the assessment.

Reviewers' identities and confidential editorial deliberations are not ordinarily disclosed.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, demonstrable bias, or conflict of interest may submit a formal appeal.

An appeal should identify the manuscript, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting information.

The journal may assign the appeal to an editor who was not directly involved in the disputed decision.

Additional expert evaluation may be requested when warranted.

An appeal does not automatically result in a new peer-review round or reversal of the original decision.

The journal seeks to resolve appeals fairly and consistently with its editorial standards.

Reviewer reports, confidential editorial comments, and associated correspondence are maintained as part of the journal's editorial records.

The journal does not ordinarily disclose reviewers' identities under its double-blind model.

Relevant reviewer comments may be shared with authors to support revision and explain editorial decisions.

Review reports are not ordinarily published unless the journal formally adopts an open-review or transparent-review policy and satisfies any applicable consent and confidentiality requirements.

Confidential editorial information must not be used for unauthorized purposes.

The publication of an article does not necessarily conclude scholarly examination of its arguments or findings.

IJHACSS supports responsible post-publication criticism, scholarly discussion, and constructive debate.

Readers and researchers may raise concerns involving interpretations, evidence, methodology, citations, or ethical matters.

Where appropriate, the journal may consider publishing letters, commentaries, responses, or corrections.

Significant concerns about published research will be evaluated under the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

Academic disagreement alone does not constitute research misconduct.

IJHACSS aims to review and improve its editorial and peer-review procedures periodically.

Feedback from authors, reviewers, editors, and readers may help identify opportunities to improve efficiency, transparency, fairness, and scholarly quality.

The journal encourages reviewers to provide evaluations that are both rigorous and constructive.

Review procedures may be updated as disciplinary practices, publishing technologies, and research ethics standards evolve.

Any substantial changes to the journal's peer-review model should be communicated transparently.

Whether you are an author preparing a manuscript, a researcher interested in serving as a reviewer, or a reader seeking information about the journal's editorial standards, IJHACSS welcomes appropriate inquiries.

Questions concerning manuscript evaluation, reviewer responsibilities, appeals, or editorial procedures may be directed to the journal's editorial office.

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

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

Editorial Contact: Available through the official journal Contact page.

Our Peer Review Philosophy

We believe that peer review should strengthen scholarship, encourage thoughtful academic dialogue, and promote intellectual integrity. By combining rigorous assessment with respect for diverse research traditions, IJHACSS seeks to provide a fair and constructive publishing environment for researchers across the humanities, arts, commerce, and social sciences.

IJHACSS — Advancing Scholarship Through Fair Review, Critical Inquiry, and Academic Excellence.