Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) is an international peer-reviewed journal focusing on governance, socio-legal systems, public policy, and digital institutional transformation.

The journal publishes theoretically grounded and empirically rigorous research that advances understanding of:

  • Governance and institutional reform

  • Law, regulation, and accountability

  • Public administration and policy innovation

  • Digital governance and AI regulation

  • Political economy and development governance

  • Social inequality and policy responses

JRSSH prioritizes comparative, cross-national, and interdisciplinary research that contributes to global scholarly debates. Manuscripts must demonstrate clear theoretical positioning, methodological rigor, and substantive analytical contribution.

The journal does not accept purely descriptive case reports or manuscripts lacking conceptual engagement.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Initial submission

Once submitted via the online system, your manuscript will undergo a standard quality control check, which comprises formatting and plagiarism checks (copies of any papers containing similar or related work under consideration or in press at other journals must be included with the submission). If any issues are identified the editorial team will return your paper to you to make appropriate changes.

After that stage, it will be assigned to a member of our Editorial Board (Editor), who will read the paper and decide whether it is appropriate for the journal. Manuscripts that are within scope and seem, on initial assessment, to be academically sound and valid, will be sent to external reviewers.

Copies of any papers containing similar or related work under consideration or in press at other journals must be included with the submission.

Peer review

During peer review, reviewers will be able to access your manuscript securely using our online system. All peer review is conducted double anonymised (or, double blind).

At the submission stage, authors may indicate a limited number of academics who should not review the paper. Excluded academics must be identified by name. Authors may also suggest potential reviewers, although we reserve the right not to follow them. The reasoning for all reviewer suggestions must be fully explained in a cover letter.

We strive to complete the peer review process in a timely manner; however, this is dependent on the availability of editors and reviewers. As such, no guarantees are made as to the duration of the review process.

Peer review for Collections

Article Collections (or Special Issues) are usually Guest Edited and associated with a call for papers.

All submissions to Collections are subject to the same peer review process and editorial standards as regular submissions, including the journal’s policy on competing interests.

Guest Editors must have no competing interests with the submissions that they handle through the peer review process. 

In instances of a potential or known conflict of interest, Guest Editors are recused from the manuscript handling process, and the relevant submission(s) is handled by another Editorial Board Member. 

Submissions authored by Guest Editors themselves are handled by independent Editorial Board members with no known conflict of interest or connection with the authors. In their own submissions Guest Editors are recommended to state in the acknowledgements section their connection to the journal as outlined in the conflicts section here.

Double-anonymised peer review

This journal uses a double-anonymised peer review. This means authors remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process; and the referees' identities are not revealed to the authors. The authors are responsible for anonymising their manuscript accordingly. These guidelines provide advice on anonymising submissions.

Decision after review

After considering the reviewer reports the Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept outright;
  • Accept in principle, where authors make some final modifications (often editorial in nature) to prepare the paper for publication;
  • Revise and Resubmit, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns and perhaps undertake additional work;
  • Reject outright.

Revisions

In cases where the referees or Editor has requested changes to the manuscript, you will be invited to prepare a revision. The decision letter will specify a deadline for submission of a revised manuscript (extensions to this deadline may be requested). Once resubmitted, the manuscript may then be sent back to the original referees or to new referees, at the Editor’s discretion.

A revised manuscript should be submitted via the revision link provided in the decision letter, and not as a new manuscript. The revision should also be accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response (rebuttal letter) to the referees explaining how the manuscript has been changed.

Final submission and acceptance

When all editorial issues are resolved, your paper will be formally accepted for publication. The received date stated on the paper will be the date on which the original submission passed our standard quality control checks. The accepted date stated on the paper will be the date on which the Editor sent the acceptance letter.

After acceptance, authors must complete the publishing agreement and article processing payment forms. Once these are received the typesetting process will begin. Authors are subsequently sent proofs of their manuscript for approval, but only changes to the title, author list or major scientific errors will be permitted. All corrections must be approved by the publishing team. If substantive changes are requested by the authors, the Editor reserves the right to move the manuscript back into the peer review stage. The journal reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures.

We reserve the right to reject a paper even after it has been accepted if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems with its academic content, or our publishing policies have been violated.

Appeals

Even in cases where Humanities and Social Sciences Communications does not invite resubmission of a manuscript, some authors may ask the Editor to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals often take several weeks. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript, and appeals can only take place after peer review. 

Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the relevant Edirtor is convinced that the original decision was a serious mistake. Consideration of an appeal is merited if a referee made substantial errors of fact or showed evidence of bias, but only if a reversal of that referee's opinion would have changed the original decision. Similarly, disputes on factual issues need not be resolved unless they were critical to the outcome.

If an appeal merits further consideration, the Editorial Board Member may send the authors' response and the revised paper out for further peer review.

 

 

Publication Frequency

This journal is published four times a year (Mrch, June, September and December)

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the  to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Policy on Use of AI Tools

1. Introduction
The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) recognizes the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, in scholarly publishing. AI tools can support authors in improving language clarity, organizing content, and assisting technical tasks. However, their use must be carefully managed to uphold:

  • academic integrity and originality
  • transparency and accountability
  • confidentiality in peer review
  • privacy, intellectual property, and other rights

This policy applies to AI tool use by authors, reviewers, and editors/editorial staff throughout manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial handling.

This policy aligns with widely adopted international publishing expectations and publication-ethics guidance, including the need for human oversight, disclosure when applicable, and safeguards for confidentiality and rights. AI tools must not be used as a substitute for human critical thinking and expert judgment.

2. Definition of AI Tools
For the purposes of this policy, AI tools refer to digital systems, platforms, or software that use artificial intelligence techniques (for example machine learning, natural language processing, or deep learning) to generate, analyze, translate, summarize, or modify textual, numerical, visual, or audio data in a scholarly context.

Examples include but are not limited to:

  • Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and other large language models (LLMs)
  • Writing and grammar tools such as Grammarly, DeepL Write, and QuillBot
  • AI-assisted data analysis, coding, and visualization tools
  • AI-assisted literature discovery and citation tools

3. Acceptable Use of AI Tools (Authors)
Authors may use AI tools only if they maintain full responsibility for the manuscript content and comply with the requirements below.

a. Permissible Uses (no disclosure required)
Disclosure is not required for basic language assistance that does not change the scholarly meaning, such as:

  • grammar checking, spelling, and punctuation correction
  • minor improvements to readability and language fluency without changing meaning
  • reference formatting and citation style formatting

b. Permissible Uses (disclosure required)
Disclosure is required if AI tools are used beyond basic language assistance, including:

  • substantive rewriting, restructuring, or summarization of the manuscript text
  • translation support beyond minor language polishing
  • supporting coding, data cleaning, statistical analysis, or modeling, provided all outputs are verified and reproducible
  • literature mapping or idea generation, provided all claims and all cited sources are independently verified by the authors

c. Restricted and Prohibited Uses
AI tools must not be used to:

  • generate an entire manuscript or substantial portions of original scholarly content in place of the authors’ own analysis and interpretation
  • fabricate, falsify, or manipulate data, results, images, or findings
  • produce citations or references without verifying that each source exists and is accurately represented
  • summarize or rephrase published works in a way that constitutes plagiarism
  • create content that infringes copyright or reproduces identifiable third-party materials without permission

d. Images, Figures, and Artwork
The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) does not permit the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts. This includes enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image or figure.

Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable only if they do not obscure or eliminate information present in the original.

Exception (methods-based use): If AI-assisted image generation or interpretation is part of the research design or methods, this use must be described in a reproducible manner in the Methods section, including the tool/model name, version, provider, and how outputs were produced. Authors may be asked to provide pre-adjusted images or raw images for editorial assessment.

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the production of artwork (for example graphical abstracts) is not permitted. Cover art may be considered only with prior permission from the Editor and with clear evidence that all necessary rights have been cleared, plus correct attribution.

e. Turnitin AI writing detection threshold
Maximum Turnitin result on AI writing detection: 20%. Authors are required to adjust their manuscripts should the results be more than 20%.

4. Responsibilities of Authors
Authors are solely responsible for all content submitted to the journal, including any content created or modified using AI tools. Authors must:

  • verify the accuracy, originality, and reliability of all AI-assisted content (including checking for incorrect or fabricated references)
  • ensure the absence of plagiarism, bias, factual errors, or hallucinated content
  • ensure that all external sources, data, and identifiable materials are correctly cited and attributed
  • retain and be able to explain their contribution, interpretation, and scholarly judgment
  • accept full responsibility for any errors, omissions, or ethical breaches resulting from AI-assisted work

5. Authorship and AI
AI tools cannot be credited as authors or co-authors, and must not be cited as authors. Authorship is limited to humans who can take public responsibility for the work, approve the final version, and respond to integrity questions.

Including AI tools in the list of authors, author notes, or author contribution statements is prohibited and may result in desk rejection or retraction.

6. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Tool Terms
Before using any AI tool, authors must ensure that its terms and conditions safeguard privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, and other rights. Authors must not provide confidential, proprietary, sensitive, or personally identifiable information to third-party AI tools unless they have a clear legal basis and adequate protections are in place.

7. Disclosure Requirements (Authors)
Authors must provide full and transparent disclosure if AI tools were used beyond basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation checks. Disclosure must include:

  • the name, version (if applicable), and developer/provider of the AI tool used
  • a clear description of the purpose and extent of its use
  • a statement confirming that the authors reviewed, verified, and take responsibility for all AI-assisted content

Location of disclosure in manuscripts

  • Methods section: if the tool contributed to data analysis, coding, figure generation (methods-based exception), or other parts of the research methodology.
  • Acknowledgements section: if the tool was used for substantive writing support, translation, or restructuring beyond basic proofreading.
  • Dedicated statement: authors are encouraged to include a section titled “Declaration of AI Tool Usage” before the References.

Declaration of AI Tool Usage: During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [insert AI tool name, version, and provider] for [describe the purpose and extent of use]. All AI-assisted outputs were critically reviewed, verified, and edited by the authors to ensure factual accuracy, clarity, and compliance with academic standards. The authors take full responsibility for the integrity and content of this manuscript.

8. Reviewer Policy (Confidentiality and Integrity)
Peer review is based on human judgment and confidentiality. Reviewers must:

  • treat manuscripts under review as confidential documents
  • not upload a submitted manuscript (or any part of it) into a generative AI tool
  • not upload peer-review reports, questionnaires, or review correspondence into any AI tool, even for language improvement
  • not use generative AI to perform the scientific assessment or to generate review conclusions

Reviewers remain responsible and accountable for the content of their review reports.

9. Editor and Editorial Staff Policy (Confidentiality and Decision-making)
Editors and editorial staff must:

  • treat submitted manuscripts, editorial notes, and decision communications as confidential
  • not upload manuscripts or any related confidential correspondence (including decision letters) into generative AI tools, even for language improvement
  • not use generative AI to assist in editorial evaluation or decision-making

Editors remain responsible and accountable for the editorial process, decisions, and communications.

10. Editorial and Peer Review Oversight
Editors and peer reviewers will evaluate AI disclosures as part of the manuscript’s ethical and methodological assessment. The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) may use screening tools (including similarity checks and AI-writing detection tools) to support editorial checks. The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) will not rely solely on automated tools to determine compliance. All assessments involve human review and direct communication with authors when clarification is needed.

If undisclosed or inappropriate AI use is suspected, the editorial office may:

  • request clarification, disclosure updates, supporting materials, or revision
  • reject the manuscript
  • refer the case to the institution or initiate a formal investigation if misconduct is suspected

11. Consequences of Non-Compliance
Failure to comply with this policy may result in:

  • rejection of the manuscript at any stage of review
  • retraction of the article after publication
  • notification of the author’s institution in cases of suspected misconduct
  • banning future submissions by the author if misuse is severe or repeated

12. Appeals and Dispute Resolution
If an author disputes an editorial decision related to AI tool usage, they may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must explain the disagreement, include supporting evidence, and reference this policy. Appeals will be reviewed by the journal’s ethics process and may be escalated when appropriate.

13. Policy Updates and Author Guidance
As AI technologies evolve, this policy will be reviewed and updated to reflect new risks, benefits, and community standards. Authors, reviewers, and editors should consult this policy before participating in the journal process and contact the editorial office if unsure whether a specific use is compliant.

14. Ethical Framework and References

References

 

Plagiarism Policy

1. Introduction

This journal maintains a strict policy against plagiarism to ensure the originality and integrity of the scholarly works it publishes. We are committed to publishing original research and adhere to the highest standards of publication ethics. This policy outlines our definition of plagiarism, the procedures for its detection, and the action taken when it is identified. All authors submitting manuscripts to this journal must affirm that their work is original and has not been plagiarized.

2. Description

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's work, ideas, words, or data as one's own without proper attribution or permission. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Directly copying text, phrases, or substantial portions of another's work without using quotation marks and appropriate citation is considered plagiarism.
  • One should avoid paraphrasing another's work too closely without providing adequate attribution.
  • Using figures, tables, data, or research results from other sources without proper acknowledgment or permission is also considered plagiarism.
  • Presenting ideas, theories, or interpretations from others as one's own original thought is unacceptable.
  • Self-plagiarism, also known as redundant or overlapping publication, involves reusing significant portions of one's own previously published work without appropriate citation or justification.

Plagiarism is a serious breach of academic and publication ethics and is unacceptable in any form. This journal expects all authors to scrupulously acknowledge the work and ideas of others.

3. Policy

  • Screening: All manuscripts submitted to this journal undergo a rigorous plagiarism check prior to peer review.
  • Tool: The journal utilizes Turnitin, an industry-standard plagiarism detection software, to screen submitted manuscripts for text similarity.
  • Similarity Index: Turnitin reports that manuscripts with an overall similarity index of more than 20% will undergo further scrutiny. However, the journal recognizes that similarity indices require careful interpretation.
  • Exclusions from Similarity Check: The plagiarism detection software will be configured to exclude the list of references/bibliography and properly formatted direct quotations (enclosed in quotation marks and appropriately cited) from the similarity calculation.
  • Consequences of Plagiarism:
    • Pre-publication: If plagiarism is detected in a submitted manuscript before publication, the manuscript will be rejected. We will notify the corresponding author, and if the plagiarism is extensive or severe, we may also inform the authors' institutions.
    • Post-publication: If plagiarism is discovered in a published article, the journal will investigate the matter thoroughly. If plagiarism is confirmed, the article will be retracted. The journal will publish a notice of retraction and notify the authors' institutions.
    • The journal reserves the right to take further action as appropriate, depending on the severity of the plagiarism.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

  • Submission Screening: Upon receiving a new manuscript submission, the editorial office will use Turnitin to generate a similarity report.
  • Report Evaluation: Editorial staff will carefully review the similarity report. A high similarity index does not automatically mean plagiarism; human oversight is crucial. Editors will assess whether identified similarities constitute plagiarism or are legitimate (e.g., common phrases, methodological descriptions standard in the field, or properly cited material).
  • Author Responsibility: Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of their submissions and for correctly citing all sources. Authors should ensure they have obtained permission to use any copyrighted material.
  • Handling Suspected Cases: If plagiarism is suspected at any stage, the journal will follow established ethical procedures for handling such allegations. This includes providing authors with an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
  • Transparency: The journal is committed to transparency in its plagiarism-checking process. Authors with questions about the plagiarism check are encouraged to contact the editorial office.
  • Continuous Improvement: The journal will regularly review and update its plagiarism policy and procedures to align with best practices and evolving standards in publication ethics.

COPE resources

 

Publication Ethics and Policies

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. The journal follows the Core Practices outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing to ensure the integrity, credibility, and transparency of the scholarly publishing process.

1. Allegations of Misconduct

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) has a well-defined process for handling allegations of misconduct, regardless of how they are brought to the journal's attention. The journal takes all allegations seriously and is committed to investigating and addressing them promptly and appropriately. This includes addressing allegations from whistleblowers.

2. Authorship and Contributorship

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) requires clear policies on authorship and contributorship, ensuring transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity. The journal manages potential authorship disputes promptly and fairly.

3. Complaints and Appeals

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) has a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher. The journal treats all complaints seriously and endeavors to resolve them in a fair and impartial manner.

4. Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH)  provides clear definitions of conflicts of interest and has established processes for handling conflicts of interest for authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and publishers. The journal ensures that any conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed appropriately.

5. Data and Reproducibility

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) includes policies on data availability and encourages the use of reporting guidelines and the registration of clinical trials and other study designs as per standard practice in their respective disciplines. The journal promotes transparency and reproducibility of research.

6. Ethical Oversight

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) maintains ethical oversight by implementing policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data, and ethical business/marketing practices.

7. Intellectual Property

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH)  has clear policies on intellectual property, copyright, and publishing licenses, which are described to authors. The journal ensures that authors are aware of the policies on prepublication and what constitutes plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication.

8. Journal Management

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) ensures a structured infrastructure, transparent policies, and open-access publication. The journal uses Turnitin for plagiarism checks, Grammarly for proofreading, and suggests Mendeley, EndNote, or Zotero for reference management. The website is secured with HTTPS and an SSL certificate, ensuring safe submission and publication processes. Regular updates are conducted to maintain alignment with industry standards.

9. Peer Review Processes

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) implements a double-blind peer-review process, where the identities of authors and reviewers are kept anonymous. The journal assigns a minimum of two reviewers, with the option to assign more if needed, to ensure thorough and unbiased evaluations of manuscripts.

10. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH) allows post-publication discussions through letters to the editor, on-site debates, or external moderated platforms. The journal has mechanisms in place for correcting, revising, or retracting articles after publication, as necessary.

11. Archiving Policy

The Journal of Research in Social Science and Humanities (JRSSH)  maintains an archiving policy to preserve the published articles in reputable digital archives, ensuring long-term accessibility and availability. The journal may collaborate with services like PKP PN Archiving Service and Portico for archiving purposes.