Peer Review and Evaluation Process
The evaluation process of Paradigma Journal of Social Sciences is conducted through a double-blind peer review system that prioritizes scientific quality, methodological rigor, and ethical reliability. This system aims to ensure an impartial, objective, and transparent evaluation environment by maintaining the confidentiality of both authors and reviewers.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are first examined by the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors in terms of formal and substantive criteria. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for its compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines, academic language proficiency, originality, thematic relevance, and level of scholarly contribution.
Manuscripts that do not meet the formal requirements or fall outside the journal’s scope are returned to the author(s) without proceeding to the peer review stage.
Plagiarism screening is conducted using software such as Turnitin or iThenticate, and the similarity index must be below 20%.
The initial screening process is generally completed within 10 to 15 days.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. When necessary, the editorial board may appoint a third reviewer.
The following principles are considered during reviewer selection:
The reviewer must have academic expertise directly related to the topic and methodology of the manuscript.
There must be no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author(s) (e.g., affiliation with the same institution, prior co-authorship, supervisor–student relationship).
The reviewer’s previous evaluation performance and the quality of past reports are taken into consideration.
Reviewers evaluate the submitted manuscripts according to the following scientific criteria:
Originality of the topic and its contribution to the literature
Consistency and adequacy of the theoretical framework
Methodological validity and reliability
Analytical coherence of the findings
Scientific contribution of the results and discussion section
Appropriateness of references and citation style (APA 7)
Language, style, and academic expression quality
Reviewers score each criterion and submit a reasoned recommendation as one of the following decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
Evaluation reports are transmitted to the authors through the editorial board while maintaining the anonymity of reviewers.
If revisions are requested in accordance with reviewer comments, authors are generally given 15 to 30 days to complete the required corrections.
Revisions must be submitted in the format of a “response to reviewers” table, providing point-by-point explanations addressing each reviewer comment.
After revision, the manuscript may be resent to the same reviewers for further evaluation.
During the revision process, authors do not communicate directly with the reviewers; all correspondence is conducted through the editorial board.
Based on the reviewer reports and the authors’ revisions, the editorial board may reach one of the following decisions:
Accept: The manuscript is considered scientifically adequate and approved for publication.
Accept after Minor Revision: The manuscript may be published after minor corrections with editorial approval.
Re-evaluation: The manuscript is resubmitted to reviewers following major revisions.
Reject: The manuscript is declined due to insufficient scientific standards or lack of adequate scholarly contribution.
Reviewer and editorial decisions are considered final. However, authors may submit a formal appeal supported by scientific justification. In such cases, the manuscript may be re-examined by an independent third reviewer or an ethics committee.
Paradigma Journal of Social Sciences adopts the principle of temporal transparency in its evaluation procedures. The average review period, calculated from submission to final decision (acceptance or rejection), generally ranges between 6 and 10 weeks.
All stages of the process can be monitored by authors in real time through the online submission system.
Reviewers are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts assigned to them. Information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal benefit.
If reviewers identify any potential conflict of interest after accepting the review assignment, they must immediately inform the editor.
Paradigma adheres to the COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and applies these standards throughout all evaluation processes.
The journal annually evaluates the peer review process through statistical indicators such as average review duration, response rates, and rejection ratios, and implements improvements in editorial policies accordingly.
The academic contributions of reviewers are acknowledged annually, and a reviewer appreciation list is published.