Peer Review Policy

The Comprehensive Journal of Humanities and Educational Studies (CJHES) is committed to upholding the integrity and quality of the research it publishes through a rigorous peer-review process. The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, which ensures that both the author(s) and the reviewer(s) remain anonymous throughout the process. This policy is designed to provide an unbiased and objective evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

1. The Review Process

  1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, the manuscript is first evaluated by the editor-in-chief or a section editor to check for alignment with the journal’s scope and adherence to basic formatting and ethical guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these initial requirements may be rejected at this stage without further review.

  2. Reviewer Selection: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, the editor selects at least two qualified and independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field of study.

  3. Reviewer's Report: Reviewers are asked to provide a detailed written report. They assess the manuscript based on several criteria, including originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and scholarly significance. Based on their assessment, they will recommend one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject.

  4. Final Decision: The editor makes a final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations. The corresponding author is then informed of the decision, and provided with the anonymous comments from the reviewers to assist with any required revisions.

2. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

Reviewers for CJHES are expected to adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document and not share or discuss it with others. They must not use any unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for their own research without the express written consent of the authors.

  • Objectivity: Reviews should be objective and constructive. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest, such as professional or personal relationships with the authors or a direct competitive interest in the research presented. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation to review.

  • Promptness: Reviewers are expected to submit their reports in a timely manner to avoid delays in the publication process.