Peer Review Policy

The Social Trends and Policy Review (STPR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, fairness, and transparency in its publication process. To achieve this, STPR employs a triple-blind peer review system, ensuring that both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is designed to:

  • Ensure the quality, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts.

  • Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.

  • Safeguard the journal’s reputation for scholarly excellence.

  • Uphold ethical and methodological rigor in published research.

2. Review Model

  • Double-Blind Review: Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identities.

  • This model minimizes bias and promotes impartial assessment based solely on the content of the manuscript.

3. Review Process Stages

a) Initial Editorial Assessment

  • The editorial office screens each submission for scope relevance, formatting compliance, and plagiarism using detection tools (e.g., iThenticate).

  • Manuscripts failing to meet these requirements may be returned to authors without external review.

b) Reviewer Selection

  • At least three independent experts with subject-matter expertise are assigned to each manuscript.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

c) Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to:

  • Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

  • Theoretical and methodological rigor.

  • Accuracy and clarity of data presentation.

  • Compliance with ethical standards in research.

d) Decision Categories
Following review, the editor may recommend:

  • Accept (with or without minor editorial changes)

  • Minor Revision (author to address small changes before acceptance)

  • Major Revision (substantial changes required; re-review necessary)

  • Reject (manuscript unsuitable for publication)

e) Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors must submit a point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment.

  • Revised manuscripts are generally sent back to the same reviewers for reassessment.

4. Review Timelines

  • Initial screening: 1–2 weeks

  • Peer review: 4–8 weeks (depending on reviewer availability)

  • Overall submission-to-decision timeline: 6–10 weeks on average.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its content.

  • Provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive feedback.

  • Refrain from using unpublished information for personal research benefit.

  • Disclose any conflicts of interest immediately to the editor.

6. Appeals Process

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal written rebuttal to the Editor-in-Chief.

  • The appeal will be reviewed by an independent senior editor or external expert, and the decision will be final.

7. Commitment to Fairness and Transparency

The STPR editorial team is dedicated to ensuring that the peer review process is:

  • Fair — unbiased and based solely on academic merit.

  • Efficient — conducted within stated timelines.

  • Transparent — with clear communication of reviewer feedback and editorial reasoning.