This peer review for SJSS isbe double blind. Both the author and the reviewers will not be knowing each other. This is done to promote fair judgment and reduce bias. It is only the chief editor who will be in the know of the author and will be responsible to administer this process. The process of the review for SJSS is as below:

1. Upon submission of an article by an author, the editor in chief will forward it to the 1^st reviewer to check whether it is in line with the topics advertised or the call for papers. The 1^st reviewer will also check whether the format of the submitted article matches with the acceptable format in this journal.
2. If the article does not match with the accepted format in this journal, then it will be forwarded back to the editor in chief to send it back to the author to make corrections.
3. If the format of the manuscript is acceptable, it will be sent to content editors. Each field of research will have two content reviewers for example reviewers of articles in the field of democracy and human rights, social development e.t.c. The reviewers will be sourced from various universities that have experts in these fields. These will look through the content to see whether it satisfactory with the theme advertised. If one reviewer amongst these ones is or not contented, the manuscript will be sent to the second and third experts. Once two of the reviewers agree on the satisfactoriness of the manuscript, then it will be sent back to the editor in chief to forward to the external reviewer. In case of corrections needed, the experts will have to note them down to be sent back to the author through the editor in chief. The content reviewers will take one week to look through the manuscript.
4. At the second review, the manuscript will be forwarded by the editor in chief to an external reviewer who will look through the content and its flow. If it is rejected, then it has to be sent back to the editor in chief with recommendations. It may also be accepted by the external reviewer with minor or major changes. The editor in chief will then send it back to the author to make changes. The external reviewer will be given two weeks to look through the manuscript.
5. After the author has made the changes recommended by the external reviewer, then the editor in chief will forward it to the English editor who will check the grammar and logical flow of ideas. It will then be sent back to the Editor in chief to send it back to the author to make changes and to check whether the recommended language changes still bring out the intended conclusions in the article. The author will be given two weeks to make all the changes. The English editor will be given one week to go through the manuscript.
6. The author will then send it back to the editor in chief. The editor in chief with the help of the web editor will then check for plagiarism using iThenticate. In case it is found free from plagiarism, the editor in chief will present it within the editorial board meeting to allow it be passed for uploading. Once plagiarism is detected at a high level as stipulated in the plagiarism policy, the manuscript will not be accepted for uploading and the author will be notified as soon as possible.
7. The Editor in chief will then ask the author to pay the publication fee and the article will be published upon payment.
8. The overall editorial process takes a maximum of seven weeks.

Structure of the peer review process