Governance

Editorial Policy

How JHSS reviews, decides, and upholds integrity — published openly so authors know exactly how their work is judged.

Contents
  1. Guiding principles
  2. Review criteria by round
  3. Reviewer rubric
  4. Decision categories
  5. Ethics & integrity
  6. Reviewer conduct
  7. Editorial board

1. Guiding principles

JHSS is both a journal and a training program. Our reviews apply real scholarly standards while serving an educational purpose: every report should leave the author a more capable researcher. Three commitments guide all editorial decisions.

  • Developmental. Feedback explains why and points toward concrete improvements, never merely labeling work as deficient.
  • Time-bound. A complete review report is delivered within two weeks of every submission and resubmission.
  • Bounded. A manuscript proceeds through at most three review rounds before a final decision.
  • Respectful of your time. Round 1 is a decisive go/no-go gate. If a paper is not publishable, we decline it in the first round — with clear reasons — rather than carrying authors through rounds that cannot end in acceptance. About 30% of submissions pass Round 1.

2. Review criteria by round

Each round has a deliberate focus so that authors fix the most fundamental issues first.

RoundPrimary focusReviewers ask
Round 1
(decisive gate)		 Contribution & validity of methodology — go/no-go Does this paper make a meaningful contribution? Is the research question clear and answerable? Are the methods valid, appropriate, and adequately described? Papers that cannot realistically reach publication are declined in Round 1 so authors do not invest in revisions that were never going to end in acceptance. Approximately 30% of submissions advance past this gate.
Round 2 Resolution & substantiation Were the Round 1 concerns genuinely addressed? Is the evidence sufficient? Are limitations honestly stated? Is the literature engagement adequate?
Round 3 Clarity, polish & verification Is the writing clear and well organized? Are citations complete and consistent? Are figures, tables, and data presented correctly? Is the paper ready to publish?
Why this order? A beautifully written paper built on an invalid method cannot be saved by editing. By concentrating Round 1 on contribution and methodology, we make sure effort in later rounds is spent on work that is fundamentally sound.

3. Reviewer rubric

Reviewers score each dimension on a 1–5 scale (1 = serious concerns, 5 = excellent) and support every score with written comments.

DimensionWhat a strong (5) paper looks like
Contribution & significanceAddresses a clear, worthwhile question and adds something new, even if modest.
MethodologyDesign fits the question; methods are valid, reproducible, and fully described.
Evidence & analysisData and analysis genuinely support the claims; alternative explanations considered.
Engagement with literatureSituates the work in relevant prior research and cites accurately.
Limitations & integrityHonestly states what the study cannot show; no overclaiming.
Clarity & structureLogical organization; precise, readable prose; clean references and figures.

4. Decision categories

At the end of each round, the handling editor issues one of four decisions.

DecisionMeaningNext step
AcceptReady to publish as is, or with trivial edits.Proceed to publication.
Minor revisionsSound work needing small, well-defined fixes.Resubmit within the stated window; typically resolved in one round.
Major revisions (resubmit)Promising but with significant issues to address.Revise and resubmit; counts toward the three-round limit.
DeclineOut of scope, or not viable within three rounds.A constructive report explains why and what to do next.

A paper that still has major unresolved problems after Round 3 receives a final decline, accompanied by guidance for future work. Declined authors are warmly encouraged to develop a new submission.

5. Ethics & integrity

  • Originality. Manuscripts must be unpublished and not under review elsewhere.
  • Plagiarism. Any plagiarism or fabricated data results in immediate desk rejection.
  • Human participants. Studies involving people must describe consent and protection of participants, with extra care when participants are minors.
  • Disclosure. Authors disclose mentor assistance, funding, conflicts of interest, and any use of AI tools.
  • Authorship. Everyone listed must have contributed substantively; the work must be the students' own.

6. Reviewer conduct

  • Reviews are double-blind: authors and reviewers are not identified to each other.
  • Reviewers maintain confidentiality and declare conflicts of interest.
  • Feedback is specific, respectful, and constructive — appropriate for a high school audience.
  • The Editor-in-Chief arbitrates disagreements between reviewers and makes the final decision.
BK
Editor-in-Chief

Bryan Kyung

A published JHSS author, Bryan Kyung oversees editorial standards and the final decision on every manuscript, ensuring reviews remain rigorous, timely, and genuinely useful to student researchers.

7. Editorial Board

JHSS is supported by an editorial board of PhD professors who have published peer-reviewed research in business, economics, and the social sciences. Board members set review standards, resolve difficult cases, and ensure that every decision reflects genuine scholarly expertise:

  • Business & management — faculty publishing in management, finance, marketing, and organizational behavior.
  • Economics — doctoral economists across micro-, macro-, behavioral, experimental, and applied policy research.
  • Social sciences — professors in sociology, political science, psychology, and adjacent fields.