Core Policy

Policy for Peer Review

NJISS uses a rigorous double-blind peer review process to protect fairness, support scientific integrity, and ensure editorial decisions are based on quality, relevance, and originality.

visibility_off

Double-Blind Peer Review

All research articles published in the Nepalese Journal of Insurance and Social Security undergo full peer review. Author and reviewer identities remain concealed throughout the review process, and all manuscripts are evaluated through an impartial editorial workflow.

  • check_circle Author identity is concealed from reviewers and reviewer identity is concealed from authors.
  • check_circle Each research article is reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts, with a third reviewer consulted when conclusions are not unanimous.
  • check_circle Editorial decisions are based on review reports, editorial insight, general quality, relevance, and originality.

Peer Review Workflow

1

Blinded submission and editorial screening

The editorial office checks whether the manuscript package is properly blinded and complete, and the Editorial Board reviews the paper for suitability, relevance, and baseline quality before external review.

Double-blind files Technical screening Scope review
2

Reviewer selection and independent evaluation

Peer reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise. Reviewers provide consent, assess the manuscript independently, and at least two qualified experts review each research article.

Area expertise Reviewer consent Minimum two reviewers
3

Editorial decision and further review if needed

Editors decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on reviewer recommendations and editorial judgment. Additional reviews may be sought whenever the editors consider them necessary.

Editorial judgment Revision requests Additional review
shield_locked

Before Submission: Blinding Checklist

visibility_off Submit the title page with author names, affiliations, and corresponding author contact details as a separate file from the blinded manuscript.
visibility_off Remove names, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding details, and any other identifying information from the manuscript.
visibility_off Replace self-identifying citations with anonymous references such as [Anonymous, 2007] where appropriate for review.
visibility_off Use third-person language when referring to your previous work instead of phrases such as “as we have shown before.”
visibility_off Ensure figures, file names, and document properties do not reveal affiliations or author identity.
visibility_off Keep self-references only when genuinely relevant to the manuscript under review.

Editorial Outcomes

Accept without modification

The manuscript is ready for publication in its present form.

Accept with minor modification

The paper is publishable after small changes that improve clarity or presentation.

Major modifications required

Substantive revision is needed before the paper can be reconsidered.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of insufficient quality or limited relevance to the readership.

Confidentiality, Ethics, and Final Decision

Peer review comments must remain objective, constructive, and confidential. Final publication decisions are made by the Editors-in-Chief and Managing Editors on the basis of reviewer reports and editorial evaluation.

Read Full Ethical Policy arrow_forward

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

gavel Respect the confidentiality of peer review and never disclose manuscript or review details beyond the journal process.
gavel Do not use information obtained through peer review for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage.
gavel Accept reviews only when you have the appropriate expertise and can complete the review within a reasonable time frame.
gavel Remain objective and constructive, and do not allow nationality, religion, politics, gender, or commercial considerations to influence the review.
gavel Avoid hostile, inflammatory, libellous, or derogatory comments and instead provide practical suggestions for improvement.
gavel Carry out your fair share of peer review in a timely way and maintain accurate professional information in your journal profile.

What Reviewers Are Expected to Assess

Key results

Summarize the most important findings and outstanding features of the work.

Validity

Identify flaws, limitations, or weaknesses that could prevent publication.

Originality and significance

Assess novelty, relevance, and whether the findings are meaningful to one or more disciplines.

Data and methodology

Comment on methodological rigor, transparency, data quality, and whether the results can be reproduced.

Statistics and uncertainty

Check the appropriateness of statistical tests, the treatment of uncertainty, and the explanation of error bars or probability values.

Conclusions and interpretation

Evaluate whether the conclusions are robust, valid, and adequately supported by the evidence.

Suggested improvements

Recommend additional experiments, analyses, or clarifications that would strengthen the manuscript.

References, clarity, and context

Review the use of prior literature, the clarity of the abstract and conclusions, and note any areas outside your expertise.