Peer Review Process

A rigorous double-blind peer review is at the heart of the Journal of South Asian Issues (JSAI), ensuring fair, unbiased, and high-quality evaluations. By obscuring the identities of both authors and reviewers, this process minimises potential biases and focuses the assessment purely on the scholarly merits of the manuscript.

Steps in the Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Review (≈ 5-7 days)

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to verify:

  • Alignment with the aims and scope of JSAI

  • Absence of plagiarism

  • Presence of scientific novelty

  • Inclusion of all required sections per the journal’s author guidelines and template

  • Compliance with formatting and citation standards

  • Adherence to ethical policies

Based on this review, the editor may:

  • Forward the manuscript to double-blind peer review

  • Request revisions to correct formatting or structural issues before review

  • Reject manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope or fail to meet basic submission standards.

At this stage, we don't think about the study's impact.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review (≈ 15-20 days)

Manuscripts that pass the initial check are sent to at least two independent reviewers, selected for their expertise in the field and holding a PhD or equivalent degree. Reviewers are chosen to avoid conflicts of interest and will not be affiliated with the same institution as the author.

Each reviewer receives the anonymised manuscript along with a structured review form to ensure consistent and objective evaluations. Reviewers may also provide comments directly on the manuscript file.

During review, the following aspects are assessed:

  • Relevance of the content to the stated title and topic

  • Timeliness, originality, and significance of the research problem

  • Soundness and appropriateness of the methodology and results

  • Quality and currency of the cited literature and proper referencing

  • Clarity and scholarly presentation of the manuscript

Based on their assessment, reviewers recommend one of the following:

  • Accept with minor revisions.

  • Accept with major revisions.

  • Revise and resubmit for further review.

  • Reject

The editor carefully considers all reviewer recommendations before a final decision. If reviewer feedback is highly divergent or ethical concerns arise, the editor may seek additional reviews to ensure a balanced judgment.

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in line with reviewer comments and respond point-by-point to all feedback. If authors disagree with specific comments, they must provide a clear, reasoned explanation. The revision process may involve multiple rounds until the editor is satisfied.

3. Editor’s Decision and Revisions (≈ 15-20 days)

The editor-in-chief makes the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the combined input of reviewers and editorial assessment.

Authors will receive a formal notification regarding the decision, which will fall into one of the following categories:

  • Accept with minor revisions.

  • Accept with major revisions.

  • Revise and resubmit

  • Reject

For articles requiring changes, authors will receive detailed reviewer comments to guide their revisions, ensuring that reviewer anonymity is maintained. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review to ensure all concerns have been addressed.

Once accepted, manuscripts proceed to the publication process. (≈ 15-20 days)

Common Reasons for Rejection

Manuscripts may be rejected for reasons including:

  • Lack of scientific significance or originality

  • Being outside the journal’s aims and scope

  • Non-compliance with submission or ethical guidelines

  • Failure to adequately address reviewer feedback

  • Inclusion of misleading, inappropriate, or offensive content

  • Disclosure of confidential information without proper authorisation