Peer Review Process

The Journal of South Asian Issues (JSAI) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process designed to ensure fair, independent, and scholarly evaluation of submitted manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to help minimise potential bias.

Review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, the extent of revisions required, and the number of review rounds.

Steps in the Peer Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Review

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess:

  • Alignment with the aims and scope of JSAI
  • Originality and scholarly contribution appropriate to the manuscript type
  • Compliance with the journal’s submission requirements and author guidelines
  • Inclusion of the required manuscript sections
  • Compliance with formatting and citation requirements
  • Plagiarism and other originality concerns
  • Compliance with relevant ethical standards

Based on the initial review, the editor may:

  • Forward the manuscript for double-blind peer review
  • Request revisions to address formatting, structural, or submission-related issues before peer review
  • Reject manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet the journal’s basic submission or ethical requirements

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial review are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected with due consideration of potential conflicts of interest and are not informed of the authors’ identities. Authors are likewise not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

Reviewers receive the anonymised manuscript and are asked to provide an objective, constructive, and confidential assessment.

During peer review, manuscripts are assessed with regard to:

  • Relevance to the stated topic and research focus
  • Originality and scholarly significance
  • Appropriateness and soundness of the methodology and analysis
  • Quality and currency of the relevant literature
  • Adequacy and accuracy of referencing
  • Clarity, coherence, and scholarly presentation

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Revise and resubmit
  • Reject

The editor considers the reviewers’ reports together with the manuscript as a whole before reaching an editorial decision. Where reviewer reports differ substantially or raise unresolved concerns, additional review may be sought.

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should respond carefully to the reviewers’ and editor’s comments. Where an author does not follow a specific recommendation, a clear and reasoned explanation should be provided.

3. Editorial Decision and Revisions

The Editor-in-Chief, or a designated editor where appropriate, makes the final editorial decision on the basis of the reviewers’ reports and the editorial assessment.

The decision may be:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Revise and resubmit
  • Reject

Authors receive formal notification of the editorial decision together with the relevant reviewer and editorial comments.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further review where necessary to determine whether the concerns raised during the previous review round have been adequately addressed.

Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the journal’s publication process.

Common Reasons for Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected for reasons including:

  • Falling outside the journal’s aims and scope
  • Insufficient originality or scholarly contribution
  • Serious methodological or analytical weaknesses
  • Failure to comply with submission or ethical requirements
  • Failure to address substantive reviewer or editorial concerns
  • Serious concerns regarding research integrity, misleading content, or inappropriate material
  • Unauthorised disclosure of confidential or protected information