Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Reviewers

These guidelines aim to clarify the responsibilities of reviewers and help them provide constructive critiques that support authors in their scientific research, regardless of the peer-review outcome (acceptance, rejection, or revision). The guidelines are structured around 10 essential points, each followed by a more detailed explanation:

Essential Points

1. Critically Evaluate Each Manuscript:

  • Assess the manuscript's suitability for the Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies.
  • Consider its novelty and overall interest to our readership.
  • Examine the validity of the experiments presented.
  • Review the statistical analysis for comprehensiveness and appropriate test usage.
  • Evaluate the conclusions to determine if they are justified based on the data.
  • Make sure the literature is cited and discussed enough times.

2. Offer specific feedback that guides authors, especially if revisions are recommended. Be explicit about what experiments or changes are needed to address your concerns.

3. Keep in mind that authors have a one-month timeframe for revisions (three months for particularly time-consuming experiments).

4. Clearly state whether you believe the manuscript is worth revising.

5. Note if the presentation or language detracts from an otherwise promising paper.

6. Treat all information regarding the manuscript as confidential.

7. Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

8. Include the names of all individuals involved in the manuscript review.

9. Detail any instances of scientific misconduct that you detect.

10. For revised manuscripts, do not raise new concerns that could have been addressed in your original review.

Considerations Before and During the Review Process

1. Does the manuscript align with your expertise?

If the topic doesn't match your area of expertise, please notify the editor promptly. Also, feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer.

2. Do you have time to complete the review?

Finish your review within two weeks. You are requested to inform the editor immediately. You are also required to suggest any other reviewer if necessary.

3. Are there any potential conflicts of interest?

While conflicts of interest won’t disqualify you from reviewing, it’s important to disclose any to the editors before you begin. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions about potential conflicts.

Note on Confidentiality:

All information in the manuscript is confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from using any of the data for their research work or for any kind of financial gain. After submitting your report, please destroy any copies of the manuscript in your possession. You may cite the reviewed paper after it’s published.

Writing a Good Report

  • Identify Key Findings: Begin by summarizing the study's objectives and main discoveries, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses.
  • Be Comprehensive: Ensure that all relevant issues from the guidelines are addressed.
  • Be Objective: Acknowledge that authors have their ideas and perspectives in your review.
  • Provide Clear Recommendations: Clearly state whether you believe the manuscript is worthy of revision for publication.
  • Offer Specific, Constructive Criticism: Suggest practical ways to enhance the manuscript.
  • Avoid Being Overly Demanding: Focus on the broader significance of the study rather than nitpicking minor details.
  • Avoid Offensiveness: Maintain a professional tone, even when delivering necessary critiques.
  • Disclose Conflicts of Interest: Be transparent about any potential conflicts before beginning your review.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

  • Do Not Raise New Issues: Concentrate on new concerns only if they come from the revised data.
  • Check for Relevance: Verify that the manuscript has been updated to include any new relevant literature published during the review period.

Next Steps

Reviewers are required to complete the "Reviewer’s Comments" form by the specified deadline, as their insights play a crucial role in the editorial decision-making process. Comments should be organized clearly for both editors and authors. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to the editorial office.

The Editorial Process

Editors will make the final decisions regarding publication based on the feedback from reviewers. In cases where reviews conflict, all evaluations may be shared for further comments. Reviewer contributions are acknowledged through certificates and recognition from the journal.