Passion Scientific Refereed Journal for Human Studies is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process to ensure fairness, impartiality, academic integrity, and objective evaluation.

The journal conducts all peer-review procedures in accordance with internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and follows principles consistent with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in addition to the journal’s own editorial policies.

 

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to verify:

  • Consistency with the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines and manuscript template.
  • Completeness of all required documents and information.
  • General academic quality and language suitability.
  • Fulfillment of the journal’s basic publication requirements.

The Editorial Board may return the manuscript for technical corrections or decline it before peer review if it does not meet the journal’s basic requirements.

 

2. Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening using the tools adopted by the journal before being sent for peer review.

If plagiarism, excessive similarity, data manipulation, or other violations of publication ethics are identified, the journal may reject the manuscript or take appropriate actions in accordance with its Publication Ethics Policy.

 

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Reviewer selection is based on:

  • Subject expertise.
  • Academic qualifications and research experience.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.
  • Independence and impartiality.

 

4. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality.
  • Refrain from using unpublished information for personal benefit.
  • Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Provide constructive, evidence-based review reports.
  • Complete the review within the requested timeframe.

 

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty.
  • Scientific significance.
  • Methodological rigor.
  • Quality of analysis and conclusions.
  • Accuracy of references and citations.
  • Clarity of presentation and language.
  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

 

6. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the Editorial Board may decide to:

  • Accept the manuscript.
  • Accept with minor revisions.
  • Request major revisions and re-evaluation.
  • Reject the manuscript.

If reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the manuscript may be referred to a third independent reviewer. The final publication decision rests solely with the Editorial Board.

 

7. Revision Process

Authors are required to revise their manuscripts within the specified period and submit a detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Where necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

 

8. Confidentiality

All manuscripts, review reports, editorial communications, and related documents are treated as confidential and may not be disclosed or used for purposes other than the editorial and peer-review process.

 

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence the review process.

Where a conflict exists, the journal may appoint an alternative reviewer or editor.

 

10. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently based solely on the scholarly quality, originality, significance, and ethical compliance of the submitted work.

Publication fees have no influence on editorial decisions. Article Processing Charges (APCs), where applicable, are requested only after final acceptance.

 

11. Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the peer-review process within approximately 3 to 6 weeks, depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

 

12. Related Policies

This policy should be read together with the following journal policies:

  • Publication Ethics
  • Plagiarism Policy
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submission Guidelines
  • Retraction & Corrections Policy
  • Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools Policy

 

Last Updated: August 2026