English 
Hindi Reviewer Guidelines
Request
Guidelines
Download & Review
Completion
REVIEWER GUIDELINES
Journal of Social Science Research encourages reviewers to help authors improve their
manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions
are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see specific comments, these can be
added to the confidential comments to the academic editor
While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers
may include:
Are the research questions valid?
Is the sample size sufficient?
Is there necessary ethical approval and consent, and was the research ethical? Are the study design and methods appropriate to answer the research question? Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that
the research might be reproduced?
Are statistical tests appropriate and correctly reported?
Are the figures and tables clear, and do they accurately represent the results?
Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed, and have those results been
compared to the current results?
Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too
many citations to the authors’ articles?
Do the results support the conclusions?
Are the limitations of the research acknowledged?
Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin? Is the language clear and understandable?
Reviewer reports should be submitted online on or before the agreed deadline to help the authors to receive timely reviews of the article. Reviewers should contact Journal of Social Science Research if they are unable to meet the deadline to arrange the alternative date.
Journal of Social Science Research encourages reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the results can support the conclusions. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. Reviewers provide a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject; however, the academic editor will make the decision.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share papers or
discuss their content with anyone outside the peer-review process.
Reviewers may, on request, consult with colleagues from their research group, trusting that the
confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. Reviewers should first contact Journal of Social
Science Research or the academic editor handling the paper and note the name of the colleague(s)
in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer review is an important component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer Review of a journal is one of the most important ingredient of UGC Gazette Regulation 2018, only after following the process of review contained in the above referred UGC Gazette a research article is accorded its recognition. It may help the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with the author he also assist the author in improving the paper. Apart from the described and specific ethics-related duties, reviewers are expected usually to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquettes. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research article or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should communicate to the editor and refuse to participate in the review process.
CONFIDENTIALITY:
Any research article received for review must be dealt with as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share or communicate with anyone the review report or information about the paper or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Discussion with colleagues or co- reviewing exercises may be held, but reviewers should first communicate this with the editor in order to ensure confidentiality.
The reviewers cannot use unpublished materials presented in a submitted research article in their own research without the prior written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept in secret and must not be used for personal gains.
Alertness to Ethical Issues:
A reviewer’s duty is to be vigilant regarding any potential ethical issues in the paper and the same should be brought to the attention of the editor. Potential ethical issues may include any similarity in the disclosed material or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement or any observation, derivation, or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests:
Reviewers should be objective and unbiased in the review process. Personal criticism of the author is altogether inappropriate. Referees should express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should counsel the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
If a reviewer recommends that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s work, this must be based on genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work.
- The conditions to join JIDR.
This job will be part-time.
This job will be on an honorary basis.
Candidate must have sound knowledge of spoken English.
Candidate must have command on internet usage because this job will be performed through the internet.
Determination
The candidates who are willing to join our journals’ editorial board must determine to maintain the quality of the journals by reviewing impartially. They must complete the review process within the given time. After completing the review process they will have to send the review report immediately to the editor. We will include the name and the affiliation of the reviewers in the list of the editorial board members on journals’ hard copy and also on its webpage.
Requirements
- Candidate must have a doctoral degree in the specific subject related to the journal he/she is going to apply.
- PhD students can also apply.
- Professors of the university are also welcomed.
- Candidate should be impartial in the review process.
- He must be aware of the value of the review process.
- He must be interested and expert in the specific field.
How to apply for the reviewer
Download the application form here. Send the complete application form or your complete and
updated CV as an email attachment to [email protected]