Peer Review Process

Fast in Social Sciences (FSS) applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity of all published articles. The peer-review process is conducted by qualified experts in relevant fields to evaluate the scientific quality and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This policy aims to ensure an objective, fair, and unbiased evaluation.

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

All manuscripts submitted to Fast in Social Sciences (FSS) undergo an initial screening process conducted by the editorial team.

During this stage, the editor evaluates:

  • Compliance with the journal's scope and focus;
  • Manuscript formatting and submission requirements;
  • Originality and academic contribution;
  • Basic methodological suitability;
  • Ethical compliance;
  • Similarity/plagiarism level.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to authors for revision or rejected before entering the peer-review process.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic expertise and research experience;
  • Knowledge of the manuscript topic;
  • Previous publication record;
  • Ability to provide objective and constructive evaluations.

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Fast in Social Sciences (FSS) uses a double-blind peer-review model, meaning:

  • The authors do not know the identity of reviewers;
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

This process ensures that manuscripts are evaluated based on their academic quality rather than authors' reputation, institutional affiliation, nationality, or other personal factors.

Each manuscript is generally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

a. Scientific Quality

  • Clarity of research objectives;
  • Theoretical foundation;
  • Research methodology;
  • Accuracy of analysis;
  • Validity and reliability of findings.

b. Originality and Contribution

  • Novelty of research ideas;
  • Contribution to social sciences knowledge;
  • Relevance to current academic discussions.

c. Manuscript Presentation

  • Organization and structure;
  • Clarity of writing;
  • Quality of tables, figures, and references;
  • Compliance with journal guidelines.

d. Ethical Considerations

  • Research integrity;
  • Appropriate citation practices;
  • Ethical treatment of research subjects when applicable.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the evaluation, reviewers provide recommendations to the editor:

  1. Accept Submission
    The manuscript is suitable for publication without major revisions.

  2. Accept with Minor Revisions
    The manuscript requires small improvements before publication.

  3. Revision Required / Major Revisions
    The manuscript requires substantial improvements and will be reviewed again if necessary.

  4. Decline Submission
    The manuscript does not meet the required academic standards or journal scope.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer comments and editorial considerations.

6. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must revise their manuscripts according to reviewer and editor comments.

Authors are required to:

  • Submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe;
  • Provide a response letter explaining changes made;
  • Clearly indicate revisions in the manuscript when requested.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

7. Review Timeline

The review process is conducted as efficiently as possible while maintaining academic quality.

The estimated timeline:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Reviewer assignment: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer-review process: 2–4 weeks
  • Revision process: 2–4 weeks

The total review duration may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the number of revision rounds required.

8. Confidentiality and Ethical Review Conduct

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents.

Reviewers are prohibited from:

  • Sharing manuscript content with others;
  • Using unpublished information for personal benefit;
  • Making personal, biased, or inappropriate comments;
  • Reviewing manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist.

All reviewers are expected to follow ethical reviewing practices based on international publication standards.

9. Final Publication Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for the final decision regarding manuscript acceptance.

Publication decisions are based on:

  • Reviewer evaluations;
  • Manuscript quality;
  • Scientific contribution;
  • Compliance with ethical publishing standards.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not depend on the authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or personal characteristics.

10. Post-Publication Review

After publication, Fast in Social Sciences (FSS) welcomes feedback from readers and researchers regarding published articles.

The journal may investigate reported concerns and take appropriate actions, including corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, when necessary to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.