Peer Review Process

JHS follows peer review guidelines of HEC in true letter and spirit to meet the requirements of annual funding. All papers submitted to JHS undergo a rigorous internal and external review by experts in the relevant area of interest:

Desk Review

Each paper goes through an internal review by a relevant editorial board member to determine whether it is properly formatted, within the scope of JHS and follows the publication ethics. The board member would also consider whether basic protocols of research have been followed in research design/analysis and contribution to the literature. Papers that do not meet the basic requirements are not sent out for external review, and the authors are generally informed within 1 to 2 weeks.

External Review

JFS follows a double-blind review process after a paper is screened through the desk review. Authors are requested not to include their personal information in the text of the paper. They are further indicated not to post their papers on any website to prevent their identity to the potential reviewers. While reviewers are also expected to refuse, if they come to know about the identification of author(s) of a paper referred to them for peer review.

External reviewers (1-2) generally comment and suggest on originality, quality of presentation, research design, data/results/conclusions, usefulness of the study and interest to the researchers’ community. During external review, if reviewers find that the research paper has major flaws that cannot be resolved through major revision, they can recommend to decline the paper.

Suggesting Reviewers

Following the HEC guidelines in letter and spirit, authors submitting their research papers to JHS are not given an option to suggest potential reviewers to review their research papers. While, authors may indicate those scholars (due to any real or perceived conflict of interest) to whom they feel not suitable to serve as reviewers for their specific paper.

Criteria for Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected carefully based on the following criteria:

  1. Must hold a PhD degree or advance professional qualification with extensive professional/academic experience, i.e. CPA, CFA, CMA, etc.
  2. Recognized expert in the field (having publications in reputable academic or professional research journals)
  3. Never coauthored a paper with author(s)
  4. Not affiliated with the institution of author(s)
  5. Should have good understanding of data analysis

Resources Available to Reviewers

Reviewers of JHS are reputable academic and professional researchers who have access to a wide range of research related databases and other latest material. If reviewers need further material to complete their review, it is also provided to them.

Publication Ethics (for reviewers)

All reviewers are encouraged to follow the HEC guidelines for reviewers to meet their responsibilities in relation to objectivity, promptness, conflict of interest, confidentiality and reporting.

Steps in Peer Review Process

Peer review process of JHS can be broadly described as:

No.

Step

Estimated Time

1

Submission of paper

–

2

First desk review *

1-2 weeks

3

External review(1-2 reviewers)

5-6 weeks

4

Communication of review reports to authors for minor/major revision **

1 week

5

Submission of revised paper

4-8 weeks(depends on other commitment of authors)

6

Second internal review(to assess whether reviewers suggestions have been incorporated satisfactorily) ***

1 week

7

Acceptance of paper(on successful submission of revised paper)

1 week

* Paper is returned to authors, if it does not meet the basic criteria

** Paper is returned to authors, if external reviewers find that the research paper has so serious faults that cannot be resolved through major revision

*** Authors are requested for further revision, if editors find that reviewers’ suggestions have not been incorporated satisfactorily

Note: Authors are requested to revise the paper carefully in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid the unnecessary delay in review process.

Resubmission of paper (after peer review)

Nearly every published paper goes through at least one revision. Authors should take a revision request as good news and opportunity to learn and improve the quality of their research paper. They are directed to revise the paper carefully in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions to avoid the needless interruption in review process. Generally, review report is provided in columnar form. Last column of the review report is Authors’ action/response. This column is to be filled by the author(s) in detail, the way each review point is incorporated in the revised version of the paper (This is a compulsory part of review process). Revised paper along with reply/response to review report should be submitted within two months. Author(s) should be very careful regarding accuracy and completeness in accordance with the reviewers’ suggested points, so as to avoid further review and delay (further revision can be recommended, if editors find that reviewers’ suggestions have not been incorporated satisfactorily).

Keeping in view the other academic/professional commitments, authors can request for extra time, if they feel that revision needs more efforts and time to improve the quality of paper.

Appeal/Complaint Process

Editorial board of JHS is committed to provide quality editorial services to its contributors and believes in building and maintaining trust and respect to all contributors, readers and practitioners. JHS believes to improve its services by responding appeals and rectifying its mistakes against:

  1. a)      Objection to publications causing harm to any party
  2. b)      Infringing ethical boundaries in any manner and
  3. c)      Rejection of research paper

Authors/readers can submit their appeal directly to the chief editor at: drlodhi@ncbae.edu.pk. The appeal must provide detail justification (harm, ethical issues or response to editor/reviewer comments). The chief editor would look after the matter independently and forward it to some appropriate JHS editorial board member. Finally, the board member after going through whole the complaint/justification can finally recommend acceptance of appeal, further review, or uphold the original decision (if any).

English Language Editing

It is the basic responsibility of authors to ensure that their research paper should be free from spelling, typing, grammar and syntax errors. Authors whose native language is not English must get their research paper edited by an English language expert. 

Plagiarism Policy

In accordance with the guidelines of the Higher Education Commission (HEC), the Journal of Human Security (JHS) observes Zero Tolerance to plagiarism. JFS uses either Turnitin or iThenticate for all research papers submitted to detect possible plagiarism. If the similarity is more than 19%, the paper is returned to the author(s) immediately. JHS follows HEC and COPE guidelines to make the determination whether (or to what extent) plagiarism exists.

If plagiarism or other unethical practices are detected after publishing the paper, editorial board has the authority to correct or retract the paper as HEC’s plagiarism policy. All authors are responsible for their content individually and collectively. In case of serious plagiarism issues, editorial board may decide to consult the institutions of authors.

Self-plagiarism: verbatim or substantial copying of authors’ own published work (or under consideration for publication at some other outlet) effecting originality of current submission is also not acceptable in any way.