For Reviewers

1. Peer Review and Editorial Procedure

Peer review is a cornerstone of our publication process, ensuring that Frontiers in Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences (FAHSS) maintains the highest standards of academic integrity and quality. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo rigorous and thorough evaluation by independent experts.

Upon submission, the journal's Managing Editor conducts an initial technical pre-check. A suitable Academic Editor is then assigned to perform an editorial pre-check, assess the manuscript's suitability, and recommend potential reviewers. Based on this pre-check, the Academic Editor may decide to: proceed with the formal peer review process, reject the manuscript, or request revisions prior to sending it for review.

If the manuscript proceeds to peer review, the Editorial Office coordinates the process, securing at least two independent review reports. Authors are expected to address all reviewers' comments thoroughly; a second round of review may be required. The final decision on the manuscript is made by the assigned Academic Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board Member, or a Special Issue Guest Editor). Once accepted, manuscripts undergo professional copy-editing and language polishing.

2. Guidelines for Reviewers

2.1. Invitation to Review

Manuscripts submitted to FAHSS are evaluated by at least two independent experts. Reviewers may be drawn from our Volunteer Reviewer Pool, Reviewer Board Members, or be specialists recommended by the Academic Editor. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, and clarity, and to provide a reasoned recommendation to the editor.

We kindly request invited reviewers to:

  • Accept or decline review invitations promptly based on the manuscript title and abstract.

  • Suggest alternative qualified reviewers if they must decline.

  • Request a deadline extension in a timely manner if more time is needed to provide a comprehensive assessment.

2.2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and contact the Editorial Office (fahss@axonpublishing.org) with any uncertainties. Conflicts may include (but are not limited to):

  • Affiliation at the same institution as any of the authors.

  • Recent (within the past three years) collaboration, co-authorship, or shared grant funding with any author.

  • A close personal relationship, known rivalry, or antagonism toward an author.

  • Any financial gain or loss that could result from the publication.

  • Any other non-financial conflicts (e.g., political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, or commercial).

Reviewers should disclose any circumstance that could be perceived as bias. Please note that being asked to review a manuscript you previously assessed for another journal is not considered a conflict of interest; you are encouraged to inform the Editorial Office if the manuscript has been significantly improved.

Reviewers are advised to consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

2.3. Declaration of Confidentiality

FAHSS employs a double-blind peer review model. Reviewers must treat all manuscript details—including the abstract and findings—as strictly confidential until publication. Reviewers should not reveal their identity within their comments or file metadata. If a reviewer wishes to delegate the review to a qualified colleague, they must obtain prior approval from the Editorial Office.

While FAHSS primarily uses confidential review, we may, upon author request and with explicit reviewer consent, explore open peer review options where reports are published alongside the article. In all standard cases, review reports remain confidential.

2.4. Review Reports

Reports must be written in English. We provide the following guidance:

General Instructions:

  • Read the entire manuscript and any supplementary materials carefully.

  • Provide a critical, constructive, and comprehensive assessment focused on the scholarly content.

  • Maintain a professional and respectful tone; derogatory comments are unacceptable.

  • Comments should be specific and detailed to allow authors to understand and address concerns.

  • Do not recommend citations of your own work, others’ work, or journal articles merely to increase citations; suggested references must genuinely enhance the manuscript.

  • The use of Generative AI (GenAI) or Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate review content is prohibited, as it violates confidentiality and data privacy. Limited use for grammar or formatting checks is acceptable but must be disclosed. Uploading any part of the manuscript to an AI tool is strictly forbidden.

Structure of the Report:

  1. Brief Summary: A short paragraph stating the manuscript's aim, main contributions, and strengths.

  2. Major Comments: Address overall concepts, methodology, theoretical framework, argument coherence, and significance for the field. Be specific.

  3. Minor/Specific Comments: Note line numbers, tables, or figures for inaccuracies or unclear statements. Focus on scholarly content; language and formatting will be handled by our editorial team.

Guiding Questions for Research Articles:

  • Is the research question original, clear, and relevant to the journal's scope?

  • Is the methodological approach sound and appropriately described for reproducibility?

  • Are the results robust, properly analyzed, and clearly presented (figures, tables)?

  • Are the conclusions supported by the evidence and arguments presented?

  • Is the literature review relevant and up-to-date? Are there excessive self-citations?

  • Are ethics and data availability statements (if applicable) adequate?

Guiding Questions for Review Articles:

  • Is the review comprehensive, timely, and does it identify a clear knowledge gap?

  • Is the coverage balanced and are the cited references appropriate and current?

  • Are the synthesis and conclusions coherent and supported by the literature?

The quality and helpfulness of review reports are evaluated by Academic Editors and contribute to a reviewer's standing within our community.

2.5. Rating Manuscripts

Please evaluate the manuscript on the following criteria:

  • Novelty & Originality: Does the work present new ideas or findings?

  • Scope: Is the topic within the aims and scope of FAHSS?

  • Significance: Are the results and conclusions important for the field?

  • Academic Soundness: Is the methodology rigorous and the argument logically valid?

  • Quality of Presentation: Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?

  • Interest to Readers: Will the paper engage our interdisciplinary readership?

  • Overall Merit: Does the manuscript constitute a valuable scholarly contribution?

  • English Language: Is the language of sufficient quality for comprehension and peer review?

If a manuscript seems more suitable for another journal, you may note this in your comments to the editor.

2.6. Overall Recommendation

Please select one of the following:

  • Accept in Present Form

  • Accept after Minor Revisions (Authors are typically given 1-2 weeks for minor revisions).

  • Reconsider after Major Revisions (Acceptance is contingent on satisfactory revision. Authors are typically given 4-6 weeks and must provide a point-by-point response. Normally, a maximum of two rounds of major revision is permitted).

  • Reject (The manuscript has fundamental flaws, lacks originality, or is outside the journal's scope).

Recommendations and their justifications are visible only to editors, not authors.

2.7. Publication Ethics in Review

Reviewers play a vital role in upholding ethics. If you suspect scientific misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, fraudulent authorship, duplicate submission, or unethical research), you must immediately alert the Editorial Office in confidence. Manuscripts must report original work with proper attribution.

2.8. Reviewer Recognition

Axon Academic Publishing Institute values the essential contribution of our reviewers. While we currently do not have a formal system for depositing reviews to ORCID, we acknowledge our reviewers annually (e.g., in a published list or via certificate of appreciation), and their service is considered in invitations to join our Reviewer Board.