Review Process & Policy

Insights (Bhalwal) International Journal of Humanities, Management, and Social Sciences (IIJHMSS) is a double-blind, peer-reviewed, open-access academic journal published by the Global Heritage Research Center for Languages and Literature. The journal follows a rigorous, transparent, and impartial peer-review process designed to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research. The review process is intended not only to evaluate the academic merit of submitted manuscripts but also to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve the quality, clarity, and impact of their work.

The peer-review system represents the foundation of the journal's academic integrity and credibility. Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations with professionalism, objectivity, confidentiality, and ethical responsibility. Their expertise plays a vital role in maintaining the scholarly standards of the journal and strengthening its contribution to the global research community.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Accept reviews only within their expertise: Reviewers should agree to evaluate manuscripts only when they possess appropriate subject knowledge and can provide an informed assessment.
• Respond promptly: If unable to complete a review due to lack of expertise, workload, or time constraints, reviewers should immediately notify the Editorial Office.
• Respect review deadlines: Reviews should be completed within the assigned timeframe. If additional time is required, reviewers should communicate with the editor as early as possible.
• Maintain strict confidentiality: All manuscripts and accompanying materials must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed with unauthorized individuals.
• Avoid personal use of unpublished material: Information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal research, publication, or professional advantage.
• Disclose conflicts of interest: Any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect impartiality should be declared before accepting the review assignment.
• Provide objective evaluations: Reviews should be based solely on the originality, scientific merit, methodology, clarity, significance, and contribution of the manuscript.
• Offer constructive feedback: Comments should be clear, respectful, evidence-based, and intended to help authors improve the quality of their work.
• Report ethical concerns: Any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other unethical practices should be reported confidentially to the editor.
• Remain free from bias: Personal beliefs, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, ethnicity, or ideological perspectives must not influence the review process.
• Protect author anonymity: Reviewers should not attempt to identify the author(s) or disclose assumptions regarding authorship.
• Follow the journal's review format: Reviews should be submitted using the prescribed review form and evaluation criteria provided by the journal.
• Avoid personal criticism: Feedback should address the quality and content of the manuscript rather than making comments about the authors personally.
• Evaluate references: Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript appropriately cites relevant, current, and authoritative literature.
• Assess the research methodology: Comments should address the suitability of the research design, data collection procedures, analytical methods, and interpretation of results.
• Consider relevance to the journal: Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript aligns with the aims, scope, and objectives of IIJHMSS and contributes meaningfully to its disciplines.
• Cooperate with the Editorial Office: Reviewers should respond promptly to editorial queries or requests for clarification whenever necessary.
• Do not delegate reviews: Review assignments must not be transferred to another individual without prior approval from the Editor.
• Provide clear recommendations: Recommendations for acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection should be supported with detailed academic justification.
• Respect editorial independence: Reviewers should recognize that the final publication decision rests solely with the Editorial Board, which considers reviewer reports alongside the journal's editorial policies.