Review Policy, Process and Ethics

Review Policy, Process and Ethics

The articles, papers etc. submitted to the Journal will be subject to the rigorous review process. Submitted papers will be processed through a “Blind Peer Review System” by experts in the subject area. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to the authors. The process is completed objectively and in strict adherence to the rules of the journal. The anonymity of the writer is assured during the review process.

During the process of review, the authors/ contributors are expected to revise/ modify the submitted manuscripts as per the suggestions given by the reviewer/ editorial board within a stipulated time frame without which the article/ submission may not be considered for final publication. The Editorial Board reserves the right to accept or reject a paper even after the review process.

General Instruction for Editors, Reviewers, Coordinators, and Other Parties 

# All parties must refrain from any type of misconduct of the journal policies, international standards, and legal obligations.

# All parties must respect the confidentiality of the content submitted by the authors and authors must not submit the content at more than one place for publishing or consideration for publishing.

# The decisions of acceptance or rejections of manuscripts in a volume would be in the direct interest of objectives of the journal and would be independent of race, sex, religion, region, qualification, position, and other individualities of the author(s).

# Confidentiality of the content of all submitted manuscripts should be respected and maintained on priority.

# No party/individual should make or retain copies of the content and all content must be returned to Editor-in-Chief after taking required actions on it.

# No party should use the content, or any of its part, or the information contained in it before its official publishing and release.

# The reviewers should submit their comments on the manuscript and its contents and NOT on the knowledge of proficiency of the author(s). At the same time, the reviewer should also extend their vision towards the contribution (positive as well as negative) of the content towards the society and the objectives of the journal and provide the comments accordingly.

# The Editor-in-Chief would consider the reviewer’s comments as one of the bases of its decision about inclusion or rejection of the manuscript in any volume of the journal though, there can be many other factors contributing to this decision e.g. criticality of the topic, suitability to the current stream of journal etc. that may have not been commented upon by the reviewers. Based on all factors, the Editor-in-Chief would take the decision about the inclusion of the manuscript in the journal and this decision should be finally acceptable to all parties.

# Blind review means confidentiality of reviewers identities from authors and authors identities from reviewers. Editors, reviewers, coordinators, and all involved parties should maintain this two-way confidentiality of the Blind Review Process.

# The reviewer(s) should bring in the knowledge of Editor-in-Chief if they find themselves connected with the manuscript or the authors in any ways e.g. they may have got a manuscript guided by them only, because, in the blind review process, this may be a possible scenario. Such a case should be reported immediately to the Editor-in-Chief and taking corrective actions.

# The editors and coordinators should make proper checks to avoid conflict of interest between authors and reviewers.

# Different acting boards should NOT act to influence the decisions and actions of each other. They should work independently and contribute collectively towards the objectives of the journal.

# The Editor-in-Chief may skip or add some step(s) in the processing of the manuscript if found utmost needed in order to avoid any conflicts or forecasted crisis e.g. sometimes a review of some content may be skipped due to maintain required secrecy before publishing or to avoid conflict of interest with the reviewers. Editor-in-chief, however, would be the final decision-making authority for such steps and would not be answerable to anyone for such decisions.

# No party should forge, misarticulate, alter or spoil the content of the submitted manuscripts.

Mode of Peer Review 

Mode of Peer Review as per Publication Ethics Organization
IDENTIFIABILITYDouble-blindSingle-blind Open 
MEDIATIONEditors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors Reviewers interact with one another openlyReviewers and authors all interact with one another openly 
PUBLICATIONPeer reviews are not published Peer reviews are published but not signed Peer reviews are published and signed 
FACILITATIONReview facilitated by a journal Review facilitated by a third-party Review facilitated by authors 
OWNERSHIPReview owned by a journal or third party Review owned by the authors of the reviews Shared or mixed ownership of reviews
Source: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The full description of peer review ethics is available here at  and

Editorial Process

# A manuscript processed for publication with the understanding that it is being submitted to Journal only at that point in time and has not been published/simultaneously submitted/ already accepted elsewhere for the publication.

# All manuscripts received are duly acknowledged with an assigned manuscript number.

# On submission, subject editor review all the submitted manuscript initially for suitability for formal review. Manuscripts with plagiarism, serious scientific or technical error and lack of a significant message are rejected without proceeding for the formal peer review. Manuscripts that are not in the scope of the Journal are also liable to be rejected at this stage.

# Manuscript clearing first round of the screening will be considered for the review process and it can be sent to two or more reviewers.

# Selection of these reviewers/referees is at the sole discretion of the editor.

# Journal strictly follows the double-blind review process, where neither the author nor the reviewers know the identity of each other.

# Members of the teams from the Editorial board have the right to take the final decision on publication after receiving comments from reviewers/ Referees. The decision of acceptance, rejection or revision in the manuscript will convey to the corresponding author.

# In case of minor or major modifications the corresponding author is requested to send an itemized response for each of the comments of reviewers and send a revised version of the manuscript to the editor.

# The manuscript will not be accepted for publication until the editor and reviewers/ referees were satisfied with the manuscript.

# Articles accepted would be copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Page proofs will be sent to the corresponding author, with or without corrections must be returned within three days.

# The corresponding author (or coauthor designee) will serve on behalf of all coauthors as the primary correspondent with the editorial office during the submission and review process.

Ethics for Editor/Editorial Members

The role of the Editorial board is most important in the publication process, Editor in Chief and members of the editorial board is deciding which article should publish or which should not accept for publication. At the Journals, this decision of publication is exclusively based on the academic merits of the evaluated manuscripts. Member of the Journal and the editorial should follow below mentioned ethical guidelines.

# Editor should strictly follow the guideline of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and should not use submitted unpublished information for their personal benefits without author consent.

# Editor decision on manuscripts should be strictly based on the scientific contents and its merits and it should not be influenced by the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

# Any manuscript received by the editorial members must be treated as confidential documents and editorial members should not discuss or disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author or its authorized person. The idea or information obtained during the processing of manuscripts must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal benefits. The editor should not consider any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Under such conditions, the editor should declare a conflict of interest.

# The idea or information obtained during the processing of manuscripts must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal benefits. The editor should not consider any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Under such conditions, the editor should declare a conflict of interest.

# Editor should take misconduct seriously especially when ethical complaints have been received regarding the breach of confidentiality, plagiarism, non-declaration of conflicts of interest or financial discloser, or inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage.

Peer Review Policy

All submissions to UJHSS are assessed by an Editor, who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review. Submissions felt to be suitable for consideration will be sent for peer review by appropriate independent experts. Editors will make a decision based on the reviewers’ reports and authors are sent these reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected.

All research articles, and most other article types, published in UJHSS is undergoing thorough peer review. This usually involves review by two independent peer reviewers. 

Peer reviewers

Authors may suggest potential reviewers if they wish; however, whether or not to consider these reviewers is at the Editor’s discretion. Authors should not suggest recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors who wish to suggest peer reviewers can do so in the cover letter and should provide institutional email addresses where possible, or information that will help the Editor to verify the identity of the reviewer.

Authors may request the exclusion of individuals as peer reviewers, but they should explain the reasons in their cover letter on submission. Authors should not exclude too many individuals as this may hinder the peer review process. Please note that the Editor may choose to invite excluded peer reviewers.

Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address will result in rejection of the manuscript and may lead to further investigation in line with our [misconduct] policy.

Guidelines for Reviewers and Ethical 

All the reviewers are requested that before accepting to review a manuscript they should ensure the following:

i. The manuscript is within their area of expertise.
ii. They can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

All the reviewers should declare their conflict of interest and can decline the review if conflicts exist.

The Journal follows the blind review process so the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process. Reviewers should ensure it on their part.

Review of a manuscript should be fair so reviews should be honest and should not influence by:

i. The origin of the manuscript
ii. Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author
iii. Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the criteria decided by Journal.

Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time to reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.

The reviewer must follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) available at  and

We have a strong parameter for parameters for ethical practice for both contributor and publisher end, this is binding for everyone. 

Step by Step Review Process (in short) 

Step 1 Author should be registered and submit the complete manuscript in .doc or .docx format. 

Step 2 Manuscript submitted by registered author will be checked by Managing editor (may be rejected if not full filling the standard research criteria).

Step 3 Submitted Manuscript will be assigned a manuscript number. 

Step 4 Peer review process will be started and the manuscript will be sent to two reviewers (manuscript may be rejected if reviewer comments are indicating the poor research quality).

Step 5 Author/s will receive the manuscript with the reviewer’s comment/s. 

Step 6 Author/s has to submit the revised manuscript to managing editor and manuscript checked by managing editor and one of the reviewers (may be rejected if not satisfying the reviewer’s queries).

Step 7 Revised Manuscript will be accepted for publication. 

Step 8 Author/s should submit the manuscript handling/processing fee. 

Step 9 Galley proof will be formed for the author/s approval and it will be sent back to author/s. 

Step 10 Manuscript typesetting and final editing process will be started based on the author/s feedback.

Step 11 Manuscript will be published after the final approval from the author/s.
C:\Users\anils\Box\Website Research Journal\Review Process Peer review process infographic_1.jpg

Document ID: UJS/2008/ReviewPolicyProcessEthics

Join Us

Join us as Reviewer

The University Trust and the University Journal of Society are welcome the scholar to join as a reviewer. We are keen to hear from researchers ready to take the next step in their publishing careers. If you think reviewing might be the right move for you.

If you want to join as a reviewer please submit your Curriculum Vitae to the editor. Your Curriculum Vitae should mention your detailed academic qualification, all working experience, and your publications. You also need to submit the full text of your five best publications.

At the first stage, you may need to work under the mentorship of a senior colleague to carry out your first review. They should be able to offer you practical help and advice as well as support when needed.

Why review?

Whether this is your first time reviewing or you are a seasoned professional, we explain why you should say yes next time an editor asks you to review.

Reviewing establishes you as an expert in your field of research – it’s a great way to enhance your academic or professional reputation.

You get the opportunity to read cutting-edge research before it has even been published.

Reviewing offers an ideal opportunity to exercise your critical thinking skills in a private arena.

You can return the favour – you are very likely a published author which means others have found the time to review your papers, now you can repay the courtesy.

Building a relationship with a journal editorial team increases your chances of being invited to join an Editorial Advisory or Review Board.

Reviewing for a University Trust Journal (University Journal of Society) entitles you to many benefits as well as you will get a social reputation in the academic world. Your work will also be recognised by the University Trust and you will get a certificate for recognition for your valuable work.

Reviewer guidelines

Our reviewers play a crucial role in the publication process with a wide range of responsibilities. We have developed some reviewer guidelines to support you at each stage of the process.

Before you review

You will receive an email inviting you to review for a journal, case study or book proposal with the option to accept or decline.

Here are some things to think about before you make your decision…

Respond to your review request

You can accept or decline your review request from your invite email. For journals and case studies, the manuscript or case will be sent to your reviewer centre on our editorial system, which you can access directly from your email.

Review the manuscript

You will be asked detailed questions to encourage you to consider all aspects of the manuscript.



Layout and format


Structured abstract






Graphics and tables


Implications for research

Quality of communication

Make your recommendation

You will make an overall recommendation to the editor or publisher to complete your review and they will take this into account when they make their decision. The most common recommendation criteria are:


Minor revisions required

Major revisions required


Minor revisions

This varies from journal to journal and article to article. However, minor revisions often require the author to make relatively small adjustments to the paper, which don’t take much time. They might be related to author guideline requirements, e.g. a slight reduction in word count; formatting changes, such as the labelling of tables or figures; further evidence of an understanding of the research literature in the field; or a slight elaboration on the research findings.

Major revisions

Major revisions often require the author to make more significant improvements, the types which take weeks or even months, rather than days. Authors may be asked to address flaws in the methodology; collect more data; conduct a more thorough analysis, or even adjust the research question to ensure the paper contributes something truly original to the body of work.

If you are new to reviewing, the Publons Academy offers a peer review training course.

The University Trust and the University Journal of Society will also organise the workshop for the reviewer if this is needed.

This is mandatory to follow the ethics at all level for every member and associated with the University Trust and University Journal of Society as well as the content creator/ author.

Please find and follow the ethics section for detail.

Where to Contact to Become a Reviewer

Please write to the editor with your detailed Curriculum Vitae and five sample publication.

Document ID: UJS/2008/JoinUsReviewer

Why Publish Open Access

Open Access refers to the free and unrestricted online availability and access to scientific research. Ever since the launch of the internet, the accessibility of data has become easier than ever before. Carrying out the same philosophy, the open access publishing model provides the wide availability of scientific content to everyone allowing academicians to maximize the impact of their research.

Publishing Open Access is extremely beneficial to Authors, Readers and even Funding Organizations as it offers a greater impact on research. It ensures that contents are available for unlimited and unrestricted access to students, teachers, and researchers across the globe. This is extremely useful for authors who have spent years working on discovering new technologies and methodologies to be able to share it with the entire world.

Open Access is very valuable as it accelerates the pace of innovation allowing researchers to build on existing research and opens the door for wider collaborations and conversations. The same applies to educational institutes by using the most up-to-date information and encouraging businesses to implement pioneering research into the latest technologies.

Open Access Policy

Open access publishing provides immediate, worldwide free access to all published manuscripts. Readers can view, download, print, and redistribute any article without any financial barrier, enabling greater distribution of an article.

The publication costs of an article are paid from an author’s research budget, or by their supporting institution. These Article Processing Charges replace subscription charges covers the costs of manuscript processing, online availability, hosting and archiving. All the University Trust Publications’ content is archived o our platform and in future this will be also archived on different platforms including Portico, which provides archiving services to scholarly journals.

All University Trust Publication’s journals adhere to the open access policy. Once our highly qualified Editorial Board has accepted the content, authors will receive an invoice including the publication charges for their manuscript.

However, we have also published a monetary contribution waiving policy. Please read that in the relevance section. You have to submit this along with your content.

Benefits to publishing open access with us

Whichever route you choose when you publish Open Access with us, our liberal policies ensure your work can be made immediately and permanently available online for anyone to access.

Access: Give a global audience immediate and easy access to your research increasing the visibility of your work.

Impact: Reach new audiences and policymakers; demonstrate the real-world application and impact of your work.

Compliance: Easily comply with funder, institution or employer mandates.

Choice: Open access routes to suit your budget, discipline, funder requirements or manuscripts or manuscript format. Pay your article/ book process charge directly or through institutional vouchers

Quality: Contents/ writing are rigorously peer-reviewed and hopefully we will be listed in the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) very soon.

Flexibility: Your work can be reused in a variety of ways with the liberal Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

Security: The University Trust Journal and eBook content is digital and permanently preserved

Visibility: Content is tagged and enhanced metadata makes sure your work is indexed in a variety of discovery system

Support: Our experienced editors and the editorial board are on hand to support you through the publishing process.

Document ID: UJS/2008/WhyOpenAccess

Why Publish with Us

There are many journals being published both online and offline around the world. Many of them are high-quality journals.

Then the question has arisen that why should you publish with the University Trust’s the University Journal of Society?

The founder of the University Trust found that most of the journals especially in India are not following the high standard of the research and publishing ethics.

Most of the research journals are not offering a social dialogue with the reader and writer/ creator/which means there is no space for dialogue between scholars and scholars and the general audience.

The research journal must provide and act as a confluence of the sharing of new questions, new ideas, new problems and new needs for the research or the subject matter which we must have to address.

In the absence of the mutual dialogue, most of the research is only written for some professional credit, for promotion or salary increment or the moving from one stage to another stage.

In the absence of the open social dialogue, much research or writing or paper or content went unchallenged. Here one can say that if someone has a serious disagreement then they should write another article/ research/ content, b what about the minor disagreement or if someone finds the factual error or ideological disagreement? Practically this is not possible to write an independent article for every reaction or finding or to express themselves. And at the same time, this is ethically not correct to not give the common reader to express their views and reaction to the article, especially for the social sciences.

We are aware that sometimes common people cannot understand some of the high-level research in the field of Humanities, Social Sciences, Language, Linguistic, Art, Culture, Performance, Drama, and any more. And it is very hard to understand the research of the natural sciences, engineering, medical and other such fields.

However, we are aware that the content published by the University Trust’s Journal like the University Journal of Society will be read by the scholar community and all those who are engaged in the research, scholar, teacher, writer, policymaker, policy influencer, and other such people. In general, every genre has its audience.

Therefore this is the right decision taken by the University Trust and the University Journal of Society to make all content in the public domain with an interaction facility. In absence of these interactions facilities, many continents are gone unaudited by the wider concerned audience and stakeholders in these fields. There are very few journals that offer these facilities. Such as the Nature Magazine at the international level and Economic Political Weekly at the Indian level. The University Journal of Society has planned to provide a better interaction facility than both. This is not available right on the website of the University Journal of Society, rather only on their social media accounts, because we have no funds to execute this idea right now.

You can give s monetary contribution to executing our innovative philosophy and idea.

The Concept of Social Audit

This is the new concept developed by the University Trust and the University Journal of Society. That no content should go unchecked and publically unaudited. Putting all content in the public domain with an interaction facility is derived from the philosophy of the social intellectual audit.

Why is Social Audit necessary?

This is necessary because every person has limited knowledge including our reviewer and even our editorial board. Even everything cannot be traced by any plagiarism detection software. This is most important for the ideology, policy, cultural, political and such other contents. This is ethical and necessary to give a chance to express the content.

Some Other Reason

Apart from the above reasons we would also like to mention that we are processing the content timely. We provide our authors with a swift and carefree publishing process. We are doing a thorough evaluation of the content. Our highly qualified editors and reviewers provide thoughtful insights to researchers on their manuscripts. Our all content is available online for unlimited access and is also archived.

Document ID: UJS/2008/WhyPublishWIthUs

Frequently Asked Question

How can we publish our conference paper in the Journal?

Please email the editor giving detail about the date of the conference, conference organizers details, place of the conference. Our representative will contact you and gives you the required details for publishing Conference Paper.

Is it possible that I see my paper online?

Once your research paper is published you can see it always online. This will be available freely across the globe.

I have not submitted the copyright form along with the Manuscript?

The copyright form is required for the publication of the paper. You can submit it by downloading it from the website, and send that from the same email ID from which you have sent the article.

I have not seen any change in status or cannot receive an email from the last 10 days from the Journals after submission of my paper.

Please see your spam filter settings; it may be possible that notification sent to your mailbox is directed towards your spam. If this is not the case, please send a reminder to the editor by stating your issue.

How much time and fees are required for the publication of the revised manuscript?

Usually, it takes around 5 to 10 days to inform your article status after submission, and we will be able to inform whether your article is considered for publication or not only after peer review. For this please follow the email sent to you from the editor. We are not tacking fees from the students. For other details please see our relevant sections.

After the successful publication of my paper, is any kind of change/correction possible in it?

Yes, an amendment inside the body of the Manuscript is permitted up to a certain extent. You can send an e-mail to the editor by stating your concern with suitable reason to the editor.

What is the use of Track Your Paper?

Track your paper gives the current status of your submitted paper. Status of paper means at which position processing of paper is done. There are many statuses of paper few are SUBMISSION UNDER PROCESS means your paper is given full importance and is under administrative checking, another status is UNDER REVIEW means when the reviewer is assigned to your paper. This will be effective after the acceptance of the ISSN by the concerned authority.

Is copyright form and publication fee required with my research paper?

Yes, a copyright form is required for the submission but not the fee.

After submission of my research paper, how much time is required to publish my paper?

After successful submission of the paper, it will take at least 3 to 7 days for general paper review and around one to two months for peer review. You can see the current status of your paper 24 X 7 on the website (Track Your Paper). Please see the Publication fee on the Author Home section of the website. Note: The tracking system will be operative after getting ISSN from the concerned authority.

I want to publish my paper. What I can do?

The authors can e-mail us their paper to the editor After successful submission, Author gets acknowledgement receipt of the submitted document on their email.

How can I become a reviewer for a journal?

Please contact the editor for the journal, with a copy of your CV. You will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page.

Who do I contact if I want to find out which volume and issue my accepted paper will appear in?

Typically, papers are added to an issue according to their date of publication. If you would like to know in advance which issue your paper will appear in, please contact the content editor of the journal. You will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. Once your paper has been published in an issue, you will be notified by email.

Who do I contact if I have a query about my submission?

Please email the journal editor – you will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. If you ever suspect an email you’ve received from the Journal might not be genuine, you are welcome to verify it with the content editor for the journal, whose contact details can be found on the editorial team tab on this page.

Is my paper suitable for the journal?

If you’ve read the aims and scope on the journal landing page and are still unsure whether your paper is suitable for the journal, please email the editor and include your paper’s title and structured abstract. They will be able to advise on your manuscript’s suitability. You will find their contact details on the Editorial team tab on this page.

How do I make a change to the list of authors once the manuscript has been submitted?

Authorship and the order in which the authors are listed on the paper should be agreed upon prior to submission. If you need to make any changes to the author information once the paper is under review or has been accepted, we will look into your request and closely follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) authorship guidelines. We will also require a statement from each author confirming their agreement.

For any other enquiry please feel free to contact us.

Document ID: UJS/2108/FAQ

Disclaimer: University Trust, University Journal of Society, Member, and Representatives

These are disclaimer for the University Trust, the University Journal of Society, and their Members and Representatives

# University Journal of Society and its representatives do NOT take any responsibility for violation of copyright, patent, or any other laws or rules by authors in their content or due to any ignorance in the review process.

# We disclaim the responsibility of correctness or completeness of the content in any respect and author(s) is (are) considered to take complete responsibility for the submitted content.

# All materials on this website are the copyright of the University Journal of Society or are reproduced with permission from other copyright owners or are submitted by respective authors who either are the owners of the content or take responsibility for reserving permissions of the use and submission of the content in their names. All rights are reserved. The materials on this website may be retrieved and downloaded solely for personal use. No materials may otherwise be copied, modified, published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without prior permission from the University Journal of Society.

# University Journal of Society no warranties or representations of any kind concerning the accuracy or suitability of the information contained on this website for any purpose. All such information is provided with a specific disclaimer of any warranties of merchantability fitness for purpose, title and/or non-infringement.

# University Journal of Society makes no warranties or representations of any kind that the services provided by this website will be uninterrupted, error-free, or that the website or the server that hosts the website are free from viruses or other forms of harmful computer code. In no event shall the University Journal of Society, its employees, or agents, or representatives be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages resulting from the use of this website or its contents. This exclusion and limitation only applies to the extent permitted by law and is without prejudice to any express provisions to the contrary in any written license or subscription agreement from the University Journal of Society in respect of the use of any online service provided via this website.

Document ID: UJS/2008/Disclaimer