Duties of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of the Journal of Social Science and Humanities (JSSH). Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively, confidentially, ethically, and within the timeframe specified by the journal.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to uphold the following responsibilities.

  1. Provide an Objective and Impartial Assessment

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic and scholarly merit.

Reviews should not be influenced by:

  • The author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics;
  • Personal relationships or disagreements;
  • Academic rivalry;
  • Commercial or financial interests; or
  • The reviewer's own theoretical or methodological preferences.

Reviewers should provide fair, evidence-based, and professionally expressed assessments.

  1. Maintain Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to JSSH are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Keep the manuscript and all information related to the review confidential;
  • Not share the manuscript or review materials with others;
  • Not discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the authorized editorial process;
  • Not use unpublished information obtained through the review for personal or professional advantage; and
  • Not reproduce, retain, distribute, or otherwise use the manuscript or its contents without authorization.

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

  1. Declare Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest as soon as they become aware of it.

A conflict may include:

  • Current employment at the same institution as an author;
  • Recent collaboration with an author;
  • A close personal or professional relationship with an author;
  • Academic or professional rivalry;
  • Financial interests related to the manuscript;
  • Involvement in the research being reviewed; or
  • A manuscript that substantially overlaps with the reviewer's own unpublished or submitted work.

If a conflict could affect the reviewer's impartiality, the reviewer should decline the assignment and inform the editor.

  1. Review Only Within the Area of Expertise

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have sufficient subject knowledge and methodological expertise to provide a meaningful assessment.

If a reviewer realizes that the manuscript falls substantially outside their expertise, they should inform the editorial office promptly rather than providing an inadequate assessment.

  1. Complete Reviews Within the Agreed Time

Reviewers should make every reasonable effort to complete their review within the deadline specified by JSSH.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office as early as possible. If they are unable to complete the review, they should notify the editor promptly so that another reviewer can be invited.

Timely reviewing is an important professional responsibility because unnecessary delays can affect the editorial process and authors' publication timelines.

  1. Provide Constructive and Respectful Comments

Reviewer comments should be:

  • Clear;
  • Specific;
  • Constructive;
  • Academically justified; and
  • Respectful.

Reviewers should identify both the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript and provide practical suggestions for improvement where appropriate.

Personal criticism, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, hostile comments, or statements about the author rather than the manuscript are not acceptable.

  1. Evaluate the Manuscript Carefully

Reviewers should, where applicable, assess:

  • Originality and significance of the research;
  • Clarity of research objectives or questions;
  • Adequacy of the literature review;
  • Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
  • Quality of data and evidence;
  • Accuracy of analysis and interpretation;
  • Relationship between findings and conclusions;
  • Theoretical or practical contribution;
  • Organization and clarity of presentation;
  • Quality and relevance of references; and
  • Compliance with relevant ethical standards.

Reviewers should clearly distinguish between major concerns that may affect the validity or publishability of the manuscript and minor concerns that can be addressed through revision.

  1. Identify Ethical or Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor if they identify serious concerns such as:

  • Plagiarism or substantial textual similarity;
  • Duplicate or redundant publication;
  • Fabrication or falsification of data;
  • Manipulation of images or data;
  • Inappropriate authorship;
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • Ethical concerns relating to research participants;
  • Suspicious or unverifiable references; or
  • Other potential forms of research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors about suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor for appropriate action.

  1. Do Not Use Confidential Information

Reviewers must not use ideas, data, methods, arguments, findings, or other information obtained through peer review for their own research, publication, funding applications, or other professional purposes.

The confidentiality obligation applies during and after the review process.

  1. Do Not Involve Other Persons Without Permission

A reviewer should not ask a colleague, student, research assistant, or another person to review all or part of a manuscript without first obtaining permission from the JSSH editorial office.

If another person is formally permitted to assist with a review, their contribution should be appropriately acknowledged in the journal's records.

  1. Maintain the Integrity of Double-Anonymous Review

JSSH normally uses a double-anonymous peer-review process.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors. If they become aware of the identity of an author and believe that this creates a conflict of interest or may affect their impartiality, they should immediately inform the editor.

Reviewers should also avoid including information in their comments that could unnecessarily reveal their identity to the authors.

  1. Provide a Clear Recommendation

Reviewers should provide a recommendation to the editor based on their assessment of the manuscript.

The recommendation may include:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision; or
  • Reject.

The recommendation should be consistent with 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.

  1. Avoid Unreasonable Citation Requests

Reviewers should recommend additional references only when they are genuinely relevant and necessary to improve the manuscript.

Reviewers should not request authors to cite the reviewer's own publications, publications from a particular journal, or unrelated works for the purpose of increasing citations.

  1. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should protect the confidentiality of manuscripts throughout the review process.

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

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their review.

  1. Respect the Editorial Decision-Making Process

Reviewers provide expert advice to assist the editorial team. They do not make the final publication decision.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the journal's editorial team.

Reviewers should respect the editorial process and maintain confidentiality regarding the outcome and discussion of manuscripts.

  1. Reviewer Accountability

By accepting a manuscript for review, reviewers accept responsibility for conducting the review in accordance with JSSH's reviewer policies and principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

Failure to comply with these duties may result in removal from the journal's reviewer database and may be considered when determining eligibility for future review assignments.

JSSH appreciates the time, expertise, and professional service provided by its reviewers. Their contribution is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal's scholarly record.