As a reviewer for Journal of Human-Social Nexus, you play an essential role in maintaining the journal’s academic standards and ensuring the quality of the research we publish. The peer review process is a critical part of the scholarly publishing workflow, and your feedback helps authors improve their work while guiding the editorial team in making informed decisions.
Below are detailed guidelines for reviewers, outlining your responsibilities, expectations, and best practices for reviewing manuscripts.
1. General Responsibilities
Impartiality and Objectivity:
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based solely on their academic merit and relevance to the journal's scope. Personal opinions, biases, or relationships with the authors should not influence the review.
Fairness: Ensure that you treat all authors and manuscripts equally, regardless of their institutional affiliation, nationality, or other personal characteristics.
Confidentiality:
All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. You must not disclose or discuss the contents of the manuscript with anyone outside of the editorial process.
Any information gained during the review process must not be used for personal gain or advantage.
Constructive Feedback:
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Comments should be specific, respectful, and focused on improving the manuscript's clarity, methodology, and overall quality.
If you identify weaknesses or flaws in the manuscript, please suggest ways to improve it. Criticisms should be framed positively, offering actionable suggestions where possible.
Timeliness:
You are expected to complete your review within 4-6 weeks from receiving the manuscript. If you need additional time, inform the editorial team as soon as possible.
If you are unable to review the manuscript within the specified timeframe or if you feel unqualified to review it, please decline the invitation promptly.
2. Types of Reviewers
Expert Reviewers:
Reviewers should be experts in the field relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter. Your expertise is critical in providing an informed assessment of the work’s contribution to the discipline.
Ethical Reviewers:
As part of your responsibility, you must ensure that the research presented adheres to ethical standards. This includes checking whether the study involved appropriate ethical approval and whether conflicts of interest have been declared by the authors.
3. Review Process
Initial Assessment:
Relevance to the Journal: Review the manuscript to ensure it fits within the journal’s scope, which includes topics in the humanities, social sciences, and interdisciplinary research.
Novelty and Originality: Consider whether the manuscript presents original research, new ideas, or advancements in the field. If the manuscript simply repeats existing ideas without adding new insights, it may not be suitable for publication.
Content Evaluation:
Clarity and Organization: Evaluate whether the manuscript is clearly written and logically organized. Are the research objectives, methodology, and conclusions well-defined? Does the article follow a logical flow from introduction to conclusion
Methodology: Assess whether the research methodology is appropriate, sound, and clearly explained. Are there any flaws in the approach that could affect the validity of the results?
Data and Results: Check whether the data analysis is thorough and if the conclusions drawn are supported by the data. Look for any inconsistencies or gaps in the analysis.
Literature Review: Ensure that the manuscript provides a comprehensive and up-to-date literature review, and that it engages with the relevant research in the field. The literature should not only summarize existing work but also identify gaps the manuscript addresses.
Contributions to the Field: Evaluate the manuscript’s potential to contribute new insights or knowledge to the field. Does the manuscript fill a gap in existing research? Does it offer practical implications or theoretical advancements?
Ethical Considerations:
Ensure that the authors have adhered to ethical guidelines in their research, including obtaining proper ethics approval for studies involving human subjects or animals.
Verify that the manuscript discloses any conflicts of interest and that the authors have provided appropriate acknowledgments for funding or support.
4. Review Report
Confidential Comments to the Editor:
In addition to comments for the authors, you may provide confidential feedback to the editor about your evaluation of the manuscript’s quality, ethical considerations, and potential for publication.
You may express any concerns that are not appropriate to share with the authors, such as ethical issues, plagiarism, or conflicts of interest.
Comments for Authors:
-
The review should include clear, constructive feedback aimed at helping the authors improve their manuscript.
-
Provide specific suggestions for improvements. These may include:
-
Revisions to the clarity of arguments or structure.
-
Suggestions for additional references or relevant literature to strengthen the argument.
-
Recommendations for improving the methodology or addressing gaps in the data analysis.
-
Comments on improving the overall presentation of the paper, including grammar and style.
-
Recommendation:
At the end of your review, you will be asked to recommend one of the following actions:
Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without major revisions.
Minor Revisions: The manuscript is suitable for publication but requires minor changes.
Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be considered for publication.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
5. Conflicts of Interest
Disclosure of Conflicts:
You must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment. Conflicts of interest can include professional, personal, or financial relationships that may affect your ability to review the manuscript impartially.
If you are unsure whether a potential conflict of interest exists, it is better to err on the side of caution and disclose it to the editorial team.
Recusal:
If you have a direct connection with the authors (e.g., co-authorship, personal relationships, recent collaborations), you should recuse yourself from reviewing the manuscript.
If you are aware of any reason why you cannot provide an unbiased review (e.g., competing research interests), it is best to decline the invitation to review.
6. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers
Plagiarism and Data Integrity:
As a reviewer, you are responsible for identifying any potential instances of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data manipulation. If you suspect any form of academic misconduct, report it to the editorial team immediately.
Ensure that the authors have properly cited all the data, sources, and references used in their manuscript.
Confidentiality:
You must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and review process. Do not share the manuscript with others or use the content for personal or professional gain.
Constructive Feedback:
Always provide constructive and respectful feedback. Reviews should focus on the content and substance of the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics of the authors.
Avoid any personal attacks or offensive language in your review.
7. Timeliness and Responsiveness
Timely Reviews:
Complete your review within 21 days of receiving the manuscript. If you are unable to meet this deadline, notify the editorial team immediately so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Timely feedback is essential to maintain the journal’s publishing schedule and uphold a fair review process for all authors.
Communication:
If you are unable to review a manuscript or feel that you are not qualified to assess it, please decline the review invitation promptly so the editorial team can find an alternative reviewer.
If you encounter any issues during the review process, such as difficulty accessing the manuscript or any ethical concerns, please communicate these to the editorial team.
As a reviewer for Journal of Human-Social Nexus, you are playing a critical role in shaping the academic rigor of the journal. Your feedback helps improve the quality of published research and ensures that only the highest quality manuscripts are accepted for publication. By following these guidelines, you contribute to maintaining the integrity and reputation of the journal and support the "Academics for a Better Society" mission.
Thank you for your invaluable contribution to the peer review process!
Journal of Human-Social Nexus is committed to ensuring the highest standards of academic rigor in the publication of research. Our peer review process is designed to provide constructive feedback to authors and maintain the integrity of the research published in our journal. Below is a detailed overview of our peer review policy, which reflects our commitment to transparency, fairness, and quality.
1. Overview of the Peer Review Process
We follow a double-blind peer review process, meaning both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This system aims to eliminate biases based on the authors' identities and focuses entirely on the quality and substance of the manuscript.
The peer review process helps ensure that the work published in Journal of Human-Social Nexus is of the highest academic standard, by subjecting it to independent, expert evaluation. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
2. Submission and Initial Review
Upon submission, the manuscript is first assessed by the Editorial Team to ensure it aligns with the journal's scope, guidelines, and quality standards. If the manuscript passes the initial review:
The corresponding author is informed that the manuscript will proceed to the peer review stage.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements of the journal (e.g., formatting issues, lack of originality, or relevance to the journal's scope) may be rejected at this stage.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process
Reviewer Selection
Editorial Team: The editorial team assigns the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the field relevant to the manuscript. In some cases, additional reviewers may be selected if needed.
Reviewer Criteria: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. They are chosen to provide an objective and fair assessment of the manuscript's contribution to the field.
Anonymity: In the double-blind process, both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not aware of the identities of the reviewers.
Review Process
-
Reviewer's Role: The reviewers are responsible for evaluating the manuscript based on its originality, clarity, methodology, relevance, and contribution to the field. They are asked to assess:
-
The significance of the research question.
-
The novelty and originality of the research.
-
The soundness of the methodology and data analysis.
-
The clarity and logical flow of the manuscript.
-
The quality and relevance of the literature review and references.
-
The potential impact and practical implications of the study.
-
-
Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within 4-6 weeks from receiving the manuscript. If additional time is needed, reviewers should notify the editorial team in advance.
-
Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback that will help the authors improve their manuscript. Comments should be objective and professional, focusing on the content rather than personal opinions.
Types of Review Decisions
After completing their review, the reviewers will recommend one of the following decisions:
Accept: The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication without the need for major revisions.
Minor Revisions: The manuscript is suitable for publication but requires minor revisions before acceptance.
Major Revisions: Significant changes are needed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
4. Author's Response and Revision
Revisions and Resubmission
If the manuscript requires revisions (minor or major), the authors are expected to address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript within a specified timeframe.
The corresponding author is expected to submit a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, explaining how the revisions were made or justifying why certain suggestions were not implemented.
Resubmission: After revisions, the manuscript will be re-assessed by the editorial team, and in some cases, it may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review.
Acceptance
If the revisions meet the reviewers' and editors' expectations, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.
Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo copyediting and formatting for publication.
5. Ethical Considerations in the Peer Review Process
Confidentiality
All materials submitted for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript before it is published.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could influence their review. Conflicts of interest may arise from personal relationships with the authors or financial interests in the subject matter.
If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer is expected to decline the invitation to review the manuscript.
Bias
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript based solely on the academic merit and scientific integrity of the work, not influenced by the author's nationality, institution, or personal characteristics.
6. Post-Publication Peer Review
Corrections and Retractions
If errors or ethical concerns are discovered after publication, the editorial team will address the issue as per ABS Publisher’s Post-Publication Policy.
The manuscript may be corrected or retracted if substantial issues are identified, such as ethical violations or errors affecting the findings of the research.
Erratum and Corrigendum
In the case of minor errors identified after publication (e.g., typographical or referencing mistakes), a corrigendum will be issued.
In the case of more significant errors (such as data manipulation or plagiarism), a retraction will be published.
7. Transparency and Accountability
Transparency: Journal of Human-Social Nexus is committed to maintaining transparency in the peer review process. Authors, reviewers, and editors must uphold the principles of integrity and impartiality.
Feedback: Authors are encouraged to engage with the feedback they receive during the review process and revise their manuscripts accordingly, improving the overall quality of their research.
8. Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers should adhere to the following guidelines to ensure a high-quality and fair review process:
Thoroughness: Provide a detailed evaluation, focusing on strengths and weaknesses.
Clarity: Make sure the review is clear, well-organized, and free from jargon.
Constructive Criticism: Offer suggestions that can improve the manuscript. Focus on providing value through constructive feedback.
Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and avoid discussing the manuscript with others.
9. Appeals Process
In the event that an author disagrees with the decision made by the reviewers or the editorial team, they may appeal the decision. The appeal should be directed to the editor-in-chief, providing a rationale for why the manuscript should be reconsidered. The editorial team will review the appeal and decide whether to proceed with further review.
Journal of Human-Social Nexus is committed to providing a robust and transparent peer review process to ensure the integrity and quality of published research. Through this process, we strive to uphold the academic standards and foster a collaborative environment between authors, reviewers, and editors to contribute to the body of knowledge in the humanities and social sciences.
