1. Type of Peer Review

ZSJ operates a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

Authors must prepare their manuscripts to facilitate anonymous review, including removing identifying information from the manuscript where appropriate. Reviewers are expected to respect the confidentiality of the process and avoid attempts to establish or disclose author identities.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Every manuscript received by ZSJ undergoes an initial editorial assessment, normally completed within 7–14 days of submission.

During this stage, the editor assesses whether the manuscript:

• Falls within the aims and scope of the journal.
• Meets the journal's submission and formatting requirements.
• Demonstrates sufficient originality, academic relevance, and scholarly merit.
• Is adequately structured and developed for external review.
• Complies with applicable publication ethics and research integrity requirements.
• Includes relevant ethical approval and informed consent statements, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without external review. Passing the initial assessment does not guarantee acceptance.

3. Selection and Number of Reviewers

Every manuscript accepted for external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area, methodology, or theoretical perspective.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, subject expertise, and ability to provide an objective assessment. The journal seeks to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the integrity of the review process.

Where reviewer reports are substantially conflicting, incomplete, or insufficient to support a sound editorial decision, the editor may appoint an additional reviewer.

4. External Peer-Review Timeline

ZSJ aims to complete external peer review within 3–6 weeks from the commencement of external review, subject to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the time required to obtain independent assessments.

Authors will be informed of editorial decisions through the journal's official communication channels. Where delays occur, the editorial office will endeavour to provide appropriate updates.

These timelines are targets rather than guarantees. Additional time may be required when reviewers decline invitations, replacement reviewers must be appointed, or further assessment is necessary.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria, as applicable to the type of submission:

1. Originality and contribution: The novelty and significance of the manuscript's contribution to existing knowledge.
2. Relevance: The manuscript's relevance to sociology and related disciplines covered by the journal.
3. Literature review: The adequacy, relevance, and currency of the literature reviewed.
4. Theoretical and conceptual framework: The clarity and appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual foundation.
5. Methodology: The suitability and rigour of the research design, sampling, data collection, and analytical methods.
6. Results and discussion: The clarity, accuracy, and interpretation of findings.
7. Conclusions and implications: The extent to which conclusions follow from the findings and address the research objectives.
8. Research ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, including participant protection, informed consent, and confidentiality.
9. Academic presentation: The quality of writing, organisation, citations, references, tables, and figures.
10. Overall suitability: The manuscript's scholarly quality and suitability for publication in ZSJ.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments that support editorial decision-making and help authors improve their manuscripts.

6. Editorial Decisions

Following receipt of the required reviewer reports, the editor considers the assessments and makes an editorial decision. Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any outstanding editorial or production requirements.
• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required before a final decision.
• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or is unsuitable for publication.

A revision decision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to new reviewers when necessary. The editor retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

7. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

• Submit original work that is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
• Ensure that all listed authors have made appropriate scholarly contributions and approved the manuscript.
• Disclose relevant funding, conflicts of interest, and other information required by the journal.
• Respond to reviewers' comments professionally and provide a clear account of revisions made.
• Obtain and document relevant ethical approvals and informed consent where applicable.
• Avoid plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, and other forms of research misconduct.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a reasoned explanation identifying specific factual errors, procedural irregularities, or substantive misunderstandings.

8. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

• Provide objective, fair, evidence-based, and constructive assessments.
• Treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential.
• Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately acknowledged.
• Disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest.
• Decline assignments outside their expertise or where they cannot complete the review within a reasonable period.
• Refrain from using unpublished information obtained during review for personal or professional advantage.
• Avoid discriminatory, offensive, or personally directed comments.

Reviewers must not delegate reviews or upload confidential manuscript content to external tools or artificial intelligence services without appropriate authorisation and safeguards.

9. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that the review process is fair, confidential, independent, and consistent with the journal's standards. They must:

• Appoint at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript proceeding to external review.
• Select reviewers with appropriate expertise.
• Protect author and reviewer anonymity.
• Manage conflicts of interest appropriately.
• Consider reviewer reports impartially and make reasoned editorial decisions.
• Address suspected plagiarism, unethical research practices, and other integrity concerns.
• Base decisions on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, and research integrity, without discrimination.

Where an editor has a conflict of interest concerning a manuscript, an independent editor will handle the submission.

10. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Manuscripts submitted to ZSJ are confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed outside the review process without appropriate authorisation.

Where concerns arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, authorship disputes, or other potential ethical violations, the journal may request clarification, investigate the matter, seek institutional input where appropriate, and take action consistent with its publication ethics policies.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written explanation identifying specific factual errors, procedural irregularities, or substantive concerns.

Appeals will be considered by the editor or, where practicable, an independent editorial representative who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision. Additional expert advice may be sought when necessary.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial handling, or alleged breaches of publication ethics will be considered fairly and confidentially.

12. Reviewer Recognition and Anonymity

ZSJ recognises the contribution of peer reviewers to scholarly publishing. The journal may acknowledge reviewers collectively where appropriate, while protecting the confidentiality of individual review assignments.

Reviewer identities will not be disclosed to authors or the public without the reviewer's consent and appropriate authorisation under the journal's procedures.

13. Policy Review

This policy may be reviewed periodically to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research ethics, and best practices. The current version will be available on the journal's official website.