Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
The UCP Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly integrity of all published articles. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are disclosed to each other at any stage of the review process.
Stage 1 — Editorial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team. Articles are assessed for scope, originality, language quality, and adherence to submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic standards are rejected at this stage without being sent for external review.
Stage 2 — External Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers — a minimum of one national and one international expert in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise and the absence of any conflict of interest with the authors.
Stage 3 — Review Decision: Based on reviewer feedback, the Editor-in-Chief communicates one of the following decisions to the author(s):
- Accept as is
- Minor revisions required
- Major revisions required
- Reject
Stage 4 — Revision & Final Decision: Authors are given a specified timeframe to submit revised manuscripts. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
Timeline: The journal aims to complete the peer review process within 8–12 weeks of submission.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if such conflicts exist. All review communications are handled confidentially.
