Review Guidelines

Introduction

The International Journal of Discourse in Social Science Research (IJDSSR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and ethical publishing. It follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.

These guidelines are framed in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .

2. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining scholarly quality. By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to:

  • Provide objective, unbiased, and evidence-based evaluations
  • Assess academic merit, originality, and relevance
  • Offer constructive and actionable feedback
  • Maintain professionalism and integrity

3. Confidentiality and Anonymity

  • Manuscripts must be treated as confidential
  • Do not share or disclose content to third parties
  • Do not attempt to identify authors
  • Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline assignments in case of conflicts such as:

  • Personal or professional relationships with authors
  • Institutional affiliations or collaborations
  • Competing research interests

Any potential conflict must be disclosed before starting the review.

5. Ethical Responsibilities and Misconduct Reporting

Reviewers must notify the editor if they identify:

  • Plagiarism or significant similarity
  • Duplicate submission or prior publication
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Unethical research practices

Concerns should be reported confidentially without independent investigation.

6. Use of AI and Third-Party Tools

  • Manuscripts must not be uploaded to AI tools or external platforms
  • Use of such tools requires journal permission
  • Any AI assistance must be disclosed

7. Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality and Contribution: Novel insights and significance
  • Theoretical Rigor: Sound frameworks and concepts
  • Methodological Soundness: Robust design and transparency
  • Ethical Compliance: Adherence to ethical standards
  • Clarity and Structure: Logical organization and readability
  • Relevance: Alignment with journal scope
  • References: Accurate and appropriate citation

8. Review Report Structure

  • Summary (Optional): Overview of the manuscript
  • Major Comments: Substantive issues
  • Minor Comments: Clarity and formatting issues
  • Confidential Comments (Optional): Notes to editor

9. Recommendation Categories

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Recommendations must align with review comments.

10. Timeliness and Responsiveness

  • Reviews should be completed within 2–4 weeks
  • Inform the editor if delays occur
  • Timely reviews ensure efficient processing

11. Professional Conduct and Integrity

  • Maintain respectful and academic tone
  • Avoid personal criticism
  • Do not suggest citations for personal gain
  • Do not delay reviews for advantage

12. Post-Review Responsibilities

  • Do not disclose reviewer role
  • Do not use unpublished material
  • Maintain confidentiality after review

13. Appeals and Editorial Process

  • Decisions are based on reviewer reports and merit
  • Authors may submit appeals
  • Reviewers may be consulted again if needed

14. Acknowledgement

The journal acknowledges the valuable contribution of reviewers in advancing ethical and high-quality research in social sciences.