Guidelines for Reviewers 

To maintain the integrity of the blind peer-review process for submissions to this journal, every effort should be taken to guarantee that the authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities. This requires authors, editors, and reviewers (who submit documents as part of their review) to verify that the following procedures have been followed regarding the content and file properties: The authors of the paper have omitted their identities from the text, substituting "Author" and the year for the authors' names, article titles, and so on in the references and footnotes. The authors of the paper have taken the necessary measures to delete personal information from the 'file properties'.

Peer reviewers are responsible for reading and assessing manuscripts in their specialist area critically and then giving authors with fair, constructive, and honest comments on their submission. It is acceptable for the Peer Reviewer to analyze the article's merits and shortcomings, suggest methods to strengthen and enhance the work's quality, and assess the manuscript's relevance and originality.

The reviewers must adhere to the following guidelines:


Originality and quality of content: Is the piece unique enough to merit publication? Is it a contribution to the body of knowledge? Is the research question significant?

Clarity and Organization: Does the article's title accurately represent the article? Does the abstract accurately represent the article's content? Is the introduction appropriate in describing the author's intentions and properly stating the issue under investigation? Typically, the introduction should review pertinent studies to provide background and explain how the results of other authors, if any, are being contested or expanded. It should include information on the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the overall experimental design or technique.

Methods: Does the author properly describe how the data was gathered in the Method section? Is the design appropriate for addressing the stated question? Is there enough information provided to enable readers to reproduce the research? Is the article specific about the methods used? If the techniques are novel, are they well explained? Was the sample size adequate? Has the equipment and supplies been explained sufficiently? Is it evident what kind of data was collected in the paper; was the author accurate in explaining measurements?

Results: This is the section in which the author(s) should describe in detail what they found throughout their study. It should be well-organized and logically sequenced. The reviewer must determine if the proper analysis was performed. Are Tables, Figures, and Images Appropriate? Do they provide the data properly? Are they straightforward to interpret and comprehend?

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the assertions made in this section substantiated by the data, and do they seem acceptable? Have the authors discussed how their findings compare to expectations and previous research? Is the piece a support for or a refutation of prior theories? Does the conclusion describe how the study contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge?

Peer-review process 

First screening: All papers are first evaluated by our in-house editors. After receiving a paper, our Editorial Office does a plagiarism check and filters it to see if it should be submitted for peer review. It is essential for authors to ensure that their article is properly written and adheres to the Journal's policies. Our Editorial Office examines the following items during the first screening process: Does the article fall within the scope of the journal? Is the manuscript's substance sufficient to warrant review? Is the article in accordance with the journal's Author Instructions? If a paper does not satisfy the journal's criteria, it will be rejected immediately.


Assigning reviewers: After submissions pass the first screening, the Editor sends them to a minimum of three peer reviewers. The reviewers submit the assessment findings and suggestions in one of the following ways: Accept, Accept with Minor Revisions, Accept with Major Revisions, Reject. We provide the rules to our reviewers to guarantee that the highest ethical standards of assessment are followed.


Final Decision: At least two completed reviews are needed for the managing editor to make a recommendation on the manuscript. The editor will be informed after the reviewers have provided their thoughts. After that, the editor will submit their suggestions and will notify the author of their final choice. If a paper is conditionally approved, the authors will be asked to modify it in accordance with the Editor's recommendations and resubmit it for further assessment. Our Editorial Workflow enables editors to reject submissions for a variety of reasons, including the subject's inappropriateness, a lack of quality, or the findings' inaccuracy. By sending the paper to a broad set of reviewers from across the world, we ensure high-quality and unprejudiced peer review.

Privacy Statement 

By submitting the manuscript, the Author acknowledges that the Editor and Publisher are bound by the Data Protection Act and that the term "Personal Data" has the meaning defined in that Act, as well as in international and Estonian legislation governing the processing and dissemination of personal data. The publisher has the right to use the Author's Personal Data (such as his or her name, email address, professional affiliation, and mailing address) for the purpose of managing and publishing the Work.

Additionally, the Author agrees that in carrying out their contractual obligations, the Editor and Publisher may disclose to the Author proprietary and/or confidential information about the Editor and/or Publisher, including but not limited to the terms of that Agreement, market research data, and marketing and editorial plans for the Contribute. The Author undertakes to keep private any information received from the Editor and Publisher that is not generally accessible from a public source and to refrain from revealing such information in a way that would be harmful to the Editor and/or Publisher's or the Contribution's success. 

Withdrawal & Correction policy

While authors are strongly urged to adhere to quality and ethical standards when submitting articles for publication, in the event that a withdrawal request is made for unethical grounds, the procedure described below is utilized to decide whether the withdrawal request will be accepted.

WITHDRAWAL OF A MANUSCRIPT PRIOR TO ITS ACCEPTANCE FOR PUBLICATION: Following submission of a manuscript, the author is automatically given three days to withdraw it. Their request will be granted instantly, without the need of a formal justification. The paper is put into the peer-review system three days after submission. As such, every request for withdrawal must be supported by a documented justification for the withdrawal. Plagiarism, failure to acquire required licenses and approvals, failure to disclose the paper's submission to other journals, and others are all examples of unethical behavior. If unethical behavior is detected, SJRSS retains the right to undertake a further investigation and take appropriate action.

WITHDRAWAL OF MANUSCRIPT AFTER APPROVAL FOR PUBLICATION: By submitting a manuscript, the author agrees to comply with all SJRSS policies, regulations, and business terms and conditions and acknowledges that, because SJRSS reserves the right to change policies at any time, the author is responsible for staying informed of all SJRSS policies, regulations, and business terms and conditions. As a result, failing to disclose pertinent material, failure to get required licenses and approvals, or concurrent submission of the article to other journals is deemed unethical behavior. SJRSS retains the right to take appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with its policy on ethical misconduct. Plagiarism, falsification of facts, and falsification of data are other examples of unethical conduct. Unintentional errors of judgment - a lack of understanding of local/funder/international/organizational rules governing the publication of one's work – will be taken into account, but the final decision will be entirely at the discretion of SJRSS.

WITHDRAWAL OF MANUSCRIPT AFTER PUBLICATION: To ensure the integrity of its repository, SJRSS does not allow papers to be removed after publication. However, under exceptional circumstances and with compelling ethical justifications, papers may be revised, changed, withdrawn, or deleted from SJRSS. To maintain a consistent open-access platform with high-quality material, like SJRSS cannot be held responsible for the removal or withdrawal of content from sources of internet. Prior to submitting an article, the author is responsible for ensuring that all terms and conditions of SJRSS and ethical standards are met.

Authors Agreement

By submitting a paper, authors affirm their consent to adhere by the agreement's terms and conditions as well as Journal's policies. Additionally, authors accept that these terms and conditions, as well as policies, are subject to change and that it is solely their obligation to remain updated by contacting the Journal's authority.


Please find the authors agreement here


Scholars Journal of Research in Social Science

Patent Code: 16297232, ISSN: 2733-3698

Holding Institute: European Cultural Point

Reg Code: 16291442

Activity License: 225325


Editor office: Ranna tn 31, Sillamäe, 40231 Ida-Virumaa, Estonia.