Review Process

Dialogues in Humanities and Social Sciences (DHSS) follows a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly relevance of all manuscripts submitted to the journal. Under this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review and decision-making process.

All submitted manuscripts are assessed through a structured editorial and peer-review procedure designed to evaluate their originality, significance, methodological or theoretical rigor, adequacy of documentation, clarity of presentation, and contribution to scholarship in the humanities and social sciences.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first screened by the editorial office and/or members of the Editorial Board to determine whether it:

  • falls within the aims and scope of the journal;

  • complies with the journal’s submission guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical standards;

  • demonstrates an appropriate level of academic quality, clarity, and scholarly presentation; and

  • is suitable for external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s submission requirements or are considered unsuitable for review may be returned to the author for correction, revision, or declined at the preliminary stage.

2. Similarity and Originality Check

All manuscripts submitted to DHSS are subject to a similarity check using Turnitin or other appropriate plagiarism-detection software before they are sent for peer review.

As a general policy:

  • manuscripts with an overall similarity index exceeding 19% may be returned to the author for clarification, revision, or rejected, depending on the nature and extent of the overlap; and

  • manuscripts with a similarity index from a single source exceeding 4% may also be subject to clarification, correction, or editorial action.

The editorial team evaluates similarity reports carefully and does not rely solely on percentage scores. Legitimate overlap in references, quotations, standard methodological descriptions, legal texts, or other properly cited material may be assessed differently from unattributed copying or unethical textual duplication. Cases involving suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, or other forms of academic misconduct are handled in accordance with the journal’s plagiarism and publication ethics policies.

3. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening and similarity check are ordinarily sent to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research background, and familiarity with the manuscript’s subject area.

Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript on criteria including, but not limited to:

  • originality and significance of the research;

  • relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;

  • conceptual, theoretical, or methodological soundness;

  • quality of analysis, interpretation, and argumentation;

  • engagement with relevant literature and adequacy of references;

  • clarity, coherence, and scholarly presentation; and

  • compliance with academic and ethical standards.

Reviewers are invited to make one of the following recommendations:

  • accept without revision;

  • accept subject to minor revisions;

  • reconsider after major revisions; or

  • reject.

4. Revision and Resubmission

Where revisions are requested, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for amendment in light of the reviewers’ and editors’ comments. Authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or sent to additional reviewers where necessary, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

5. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers’ reports, the quality and originality of the manuscript, the adequacy of revisions, and the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, editorial standards, and ethical requirements.

The Editorial Board of Dialogues in Humanities and Social Sciences (DHSS) reserves the right to accept or reject a manuscript at any stage of the editorial or peer-review process.

6. Copyediting and Pre-Publication Checks

Accepted manuscripts may undergo editorial editing for language, style, grammar, formatting, references, consistency, and clarity prior to publication. Where necessary, the manuscript may also be reviewed for technical accuracy, citation integrity, and compliance with the journal’s publication requirements. Such editorial revision is intended to improve the presentation of the manuscript and does not alter the intellectual content of the author’s work.

7. Ethical Oversight

DHSS is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics. In cases where allegations of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, authorship disputes, or other forms of research misconduct arise before or after publication, the journal will investigate the matter in accordance with its editorial policies and internationally recognized ethical guidance, including the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) where applicable.

8. Principles Governing Peer Review

The peer-review process at DHSS is guided by the principles of fairness, confidentiality, academic integrity, editorial independence, transparency, and scholarly rigor. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit and relevance to the journal, without discrimination based on gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, ethnicity, religion, or political viewpoint.