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


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here