Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Social Science and Humanities (JSSH), School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Languages (SSHL), Bangladesh Open University, is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, confidential, and constructive peer-review process.

JSSH normally follows a double-anonymous peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal.

1. Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when:

  • The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
  • They are able to provide an objective and impartial assessment.
  • They can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • They do not have any conflict of interest with the authors, research, or institution concerned.

If a reviewer does not have sufficient expertise or cannot complete the review within the required period, they should decline the invitation promptly.

Reviewers are encouraged to inform the editorial office if they believe another qualified scholar would be more suitable.

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Keep the manuscript and all related materials confidential.
  • Not share the manuscript, reviewer comments, or editorial correspondence with anyone without permission from the journal.
  • Not discuss the manuscript with the authors or other persons.
  • Not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, or professional advantage.
  • Not retain or distribute copies of the manuscript after the review process unless authorized by the journal.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or completing a review.

A conflict may arise from, for example:

  • A close personal or professional relationship with an author;
  • Employment at the same institution as an author;
  • Recent collaboration with an author;
  • Academic rivalry;
  • Financial or other interests related to the research;
  • A manuscript that substantially overlaps with the reviewer’s own unpublished or submitted work.

If a conflict of interest could prevent an impartial assessment, the reviewer should decline the review and inform the editor.

4. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviews must be based on the academic quality and scholarly merit of the manuscript.

Reviewers should not allow their assessment to be influenced by:

  • The nationality or institutional affiliation of the authors;
  • Gender;
  • Religion;
  • Political beliefs;
  • Personal characteristics;
  • Theoretical or methodological differences;
  • Commercial considerations; or
  • Personal relationships or disagreements.

Reviewers should provide an objective and evidence-based assessment.

5. Conducting the Review

Reviewers should read the manuscript carefully and assess its overall academic quality.

Where applicable, reviewers should consider:

  1. Originality and Significance
  • Is the research original?
  • Does it make a meaningful contribution to the relevant field?
  • Is the research question or objective clearly identified?
  1. Literature Review
  • Does the manuscript demonstrate adequate knowledge of relevant literature?
  • Are important and relevant sources appropriately cited?
  • Does the literature review establish the academic context of the study?
  1. Methodology
  • Are the research methods appropriate?
  • Are the research design, sampling, data collection, and analytical procedures adequately explained?
  • Are the methods sufficiently rigorous for the research objectives?
  1. Analysis and Findings
  • Are the analysis and interpretation appropriate?
  • Are conclusions supported by the evidence?
  • Are tables, figures, or other evidence presented appropriately?
  1. Discussion and Conclusion
  • Does the discussion adequately address the research objectives?
  • Does the manuscript explain its contribution to existing knowledge?
  • Are the conclusions reasonable and supported by the findings?
  1. Presentation and Organization
  • Is the manuscript clearly organized?
  • Is the writing understandable and academically appropriate?
  • Are citations and references sufficiently complete and consistent with APA 7th edition?
  1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should identify any apparent ethical concerns relating to research participants, informed consent, data, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct.

If a reviewer suspects serious ethical misconduct, the concern should be communicated confidentially to the editor rather than investigated independently.

6. Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments should be:

  • Clear;
  • Specific;
  • Constructive;
  • Respectful;
  • Academically justified; and
  • Helpful to the authors.

Reviewers should distinguish between major and minor concerns where possible.

Personal, offensive, discriminatory, sarcastic, or defamatory comments are not acceptable.

The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scholarly work, not to discourage or personally criticize authors.

7. Recommendation to the Editor

At the end of the review, reviewers should provide a recommendation based on their assessment. Possible recommendations may include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by the comments provided in the review.

The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

8. Timeliness

JSSH normally requests reviewers to complete their evaluation within the timeframe specified in the review invitation.

Reviewers should:

  • Accept an assignment only if they can meet the deadline;
  • Inform the editor promptly if additional time is required;
  • Notify the editor immediately if circumstances prevent completion of the review.

Timely peer review helps the journal maintain an efficient editorial process.

  1. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content to publicly available generative AI tools or other external systems where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality and integrity of the peer-review process.

Any use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable publisher policies.

  1. Reviewer Anonymity

JSSH normally uses double-anonymous peer review. Reviewers should therefore avoid including information in their comments that could unnecessarily reveal their identity to the authors.

Reviewer identities will not normally be disclosed to authors unless the journal's policy explicitly provides otherwise.

  1. Reviewer Recognition

JSSH values the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing.

The journal may acknowledge reviewers through appropriate means, subject to the journal's policies and the reviewer's consent.

  1. Final Responsibility

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and professional conduct.

Reviewers should follow the ethical principles established by recognized scholarly publishing organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).