NBPAJAHS

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

  1. Purpose

The peer review process is a vital component of scholarly publishing that ensures the quality, validity, and originality of research published in the NBPA Journal for Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences. It provides an objective evaluation of manuscripts and helps authors improve their work through constructive feedback.

  1. Type of Peer Review

The NBPA Journal for Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process:

  • The identity of the reviewers is concealed from the authors.
  • The identity of the authors is also concealed from the reviewers.
    This approach maintains impartiality and reduces potential bias in the evaluation process.
  1. Review Process
  1. Initial Screening:
    Each submission is first assessed by the Editorial Team for suitability, originality, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet basic standards may be returned or rejected before peer review.
  2. Reviewer Selection:
    Qualified experts in the relevant field are invited to review the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflict of interest.
  3. Evaluation Criteria:
    Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on the basis of:
    • Originality and significance of the research
    • Clarity of objectives and methodology
    • Soundness of analysis and interpretation
    • Relevance and contribution to the field
    • Appropriateness of references and language quality
  4. Review Timeline:
    Reviewers are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete their review. Extensions may be granted upon request.
  5. Decision Categories:
    Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial decision may be:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  6. Revision and Resubmission:
    Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewers’ comments and submit a detailed response letter indicating how each issue has been addressed.
  7. Final Decision:
    The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ comments, authors’ revisions, and the journal’s editorial standards.