Reviwier Guidlines

Reviewer Guidelines for the Journal of Humanistic Studies and Social Dynamics (JHSSD)

As a reviewer for the International Journal of Commerce, Management, Leadership, and Law (IJCMLL), your role is crucial in ensuring the quality, integrity, and relevance of the research we publish. Below are the key guidelines to help you provide constructive and insightful reviews:

 

  1. Review Criteria

Please evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript offer new insights or approaches to the field?
  • Relevance: Is the topic of interest to the journal’s readership in humanities, social sciences, or commerce?
  • Clarity: Is the research question or hypothesis clear and well-defined?
  • Methodology: Are the methods used in the study sound and appropriate for the research question?
  • Data and Analysis: Is the data adequate, and is the analysis rigorous?
  • Results and Interpretation: Are the results presented clearly, and do the conclusions logically follow from the data?
  • Literature Review: Does the manuscript reference appropriate and up-to-date literature?
  • Ethical Standards: Are there any ethical concerns regarding the study, such as plagiarism or misrepresentation?

 

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities
  • Confidentiality: Treat all submissions as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript before publication.
  • Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, objective, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Avoid personal comments or overly harsh criticism.
  • Timeliness: Submit your review within the agreed timeframe (typically 2-3 weeks). If you need more time, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
  • Conflict of Interest: If you identify any conflict of interest (personal, financial, or academic) that could affect your impartiality, please notify the editor and recuse yourself from reviewing the manuscript.
  • Recommendation: After reviewing the manuscript, you will be asked to make one of the following recommendations:
    • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no or minor revisions.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions, but it has potential for publication.
    • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in its current form.

 

  1. Review Process
  • Initial Evaluation: Review the abstract and introduction to determine if the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and makes a significant contribution to the field.
  • Detailed Review: Analyze the methodology, results, and discussion in detail. Identify any weaknesses, unclear sections, or improvements that can be made.
  • Comments to the Author: Write clear, detailed comments addressing both strengths and weaknesses. Offer constructive suggestions for improvement.
  • Comments to the Editor: Provide confidential remarks for the editor, including any ethical concerns, potential conflicts of interest, or general suitability of the manuscript.

 

  1. Ethical Considerations
  • Plagiarism: Report any suspected plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or duplicate submission immediately.
  • Research Misconduct: Inform the editor if you detect any ethical issues related to data fabrication, misrepresentation, or failure to obtain ethical approval for studies involving human or animal subjects.

 

  1. Formatting and Style
  • Reviewers are not responsible for correcting grammar, formatting, or style. However, if language issues severely affect the clarity of the manuscript, please mention this in your comments.

 

  1. Declining a Review Invitation

If you feel unqualified to review a manuscript, have a conflict of interest, or are unable to complete the review within the given timeframe, please decline the invitation as soon as possible. If possible, you may suggest an alternative reviewer with the appropriate expertise.