Peer Review Policy

 

Computational Social Sciences Review (CSSR) adopts a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the highest academic standards. All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening followed by a double-blind peer review, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to evaluate:

  • Alignment with the journal’s Aim & Scope
  • Originality and scholarly contribution
  • Methodological soundness
  • Compliance with ethical and formatting requirements

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. In cases of conflicting recommendations, a third reviewer or a senior editor may be consulted. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed to ensure fairness and objectivity.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and significance of the research
  • Methodological rigor and reproducibility
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation
  • Contribution to computational social science
  • Clarity, structure, and academic writing quality

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the editor will issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Authors invited to revise must submit a detailed response to reviewers explaining all changes made. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers.

5. Review Timeline

CSSR strives to provide an efficient review process. The typical review cycle is:

  • Initial editorial check: 3–7 days
  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks
  • Revision assessment: 1–2 weeks

6. Ethical Considerations

CSSR adheres to COPE’s guidelines for ethical peer review. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential, disclose any conflicts of interest, and provide objective, constructive feedback.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request for reconsideration. Complaints regarding the review process will be independently evaluated by the editorial office.