Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review and Editorial Quality

Reviewer Guidelines

Social Sciences Journal (SSJ)  |  e-ISSN 3047-7646

Peer reviewers play a central role in safeguarding the integrity, scholarly quality, originality, and relevance of the journal's published record. Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, evidence-based, respectful, constructive, and timely assessment within their area of expertise.

These guidelines apply to original research articles, review articles, conceptual papers, case studies, and other scholarly contributions within the journal's stated focus and scope. Assessment criteria should be applied proportionately to the article type, disciplinary conventions, research context, and methods used.

Editorial responsibility Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision after considering the reviewer reports, journal policy, research-integrity requirements, and any relevant ethical or legal concerns.
Independent Assessment Evaluate scholarly merit without discrimination, personal bias, commercial influence, or pressure to reach a predetermined outcome.
Confidential Process Treat the manuscript, supplementary material, reviewer form, correspondence, and editorial information as confidential documents.
Constructive Report Explain major concerns clearly, distinguish essential revisions from suggestions, and support criticism with evidence or relevant references.

1. Peer-Review Model and Workflow

SSJ applies a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by two or more independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

1. Editorial Screening
2. Independent Review
3. Author Revision
4. Editorial Decision

All invitations, reports, revisions, and recommendations must be handled through the journal's OJS workflow. Reviewers must not contact authors directly or attempt to discover an author's identity.

2. Before Accepting an Invitation

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when all of the following conditions can be met:

  • The manuscript is sufficiently close to the reviewer's field of expertise.
  • The report can be completed within the timeframe stated in OJS.
  • No actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest could compromise independent judgment.
  • The reviewer can maintain confidentiality and comply with the journal's ethical policies.

A reviewer who lacks relevant expertise, cannot provide a timely assessment, or recognizes a conflict should promptly decline and state the reason confidentially to the editor. Suggested alternatives must be selected for scholarly suitability, not for their presumed recommendation.

3. Confidentiality, Conflicts, and Responsible Conduct

3.1 Confidentiality

The manuscript and associated materials are privileged information. They must not be shared, copied, quoted, used for personal research or advantage, or discussed with a third party without prior written permission from the editor. Reviewer reports must not reveal the reviewer's identity.

3.2 Generative AI and External Services

Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, figure, dataset, supplementary file, reviewer form, or editorial correspondence to public generative-AI systems or other unapproved third-party services. Such disclosure may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, and personal-data protection. The substantive assessment must reflect the reviewer's own expert judgment, and the reviewer remains accountable for the report.

3.3 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality, including recent collaboration, direct competition, financial interests, institutional or personal relationships, supervisory relationships, or prior involvement with the work. When uncertain, disclose the matter and allow the editor to determine suitability.

3.4 Fairness and Citation Ethics

Manuscripts must be evaluated solely on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance. Reviewers must not request citations to increase citations to themselves, their associates, the journal, or a particular publication. Every suggested citation must be directly relevant and academically justified.

4. Core Assessment Criteria

The following questions provide the journal's minimum evaluation framework. They should be applied proportionately to the article type, disciplinary conventions, research context, and method.

1. Relevance and Scope
  • Does the manuscript fit the journal's focus and scope?
  • Is the topic relevant to social-science scholarship or practice?
  • Is the contribution meaningful to an international or appropriately defined readership?
2. Originality and Contribution
  • Is the research problem, gap, or contribution clearly stated?
  • Does the manuscript add new evidence, interpretation, theory, method, or policy insight?
  • Are claims of novelty credible and supported by the literature?
3. Title, Abstract, and Keywords
  • Is the title concise, specific, informative, and consistent with the study?
  • Does the abstract state the purpose, method, principal findings, and conclusion?
  • Are the keywords accurate and searchable?
4. Introduction and Literature
  • Is the problem situated in an adequate theoretical and empirical context?
  • Is relevant and reasonably current scholarship critically synthesized?
  • Are the objectives, questions, or hypotheses explicit and logically derived?
5. Methods and Research Ethics
  • Is the design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are sampling, data sources, instruments, procedures, and analyses sufficiently described?
  • Are validity, reliability, trustworthiness, and reproducibility addressed?
  • Are ethical approval, consent, privacy, and participant protections reported where required?
6. Results or Findings
  • Are findings presented clearly, accurately, and logically?
  • Are analyses appropriate and sufficiently reported?
  • Do tables and figures add value and correspond to the text?
  • Are claims supported without selective or exaggerated interpretation?
7. Discussion
  • Does the discussion interpret rather than repeat the results?
  • Are findings compared critically with scholarship and theory?
  • Are theoretical, practical, social, or policy implications justified?
  • Are alternative explanations and limitations acknowledged?
8. Conclusion
  • Does the conclusion answer the objectives or research questions?
  • Is it proportionate to the evidence and free from unsupported generalization?
  • Are recommendations or future directions specific and justified?
9. Presentation and Reporting Quality
  • Is the argument coherent, organized, and consistent?
  • Is the language scholarly, inclusive, precise, and readable?
  • Does the manuscript follow the journal template and relevant reporting guidelines?
  • Are terminology, tables, figures, and supplementary files explained?
10. References and Research Integrity
  • Are sources relevant, credible, current where appropriate, and accurately represented?
  • Are citations complete and consistent with journal style?
  • Is there citation manipulation or excessive self-citation?
  • Are there signs of plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other misconduct?

5. Suggested Scoring Framework

When the OJS review form requests numerical ratings, reviewers may use the following scale. Scores must be supported by narrative comments and do not replace a reasoned assessment.

Score Rating Interpretation
5 Excellent Meets a high scholarly standard; only negligible improvements, if any, are required.
4 Good Sound and valuable contribution; limited, clearly defined revisions are required.
3 Adequate Potentially publishable, but important weaknesses require substantial revision.
2 Weak Major conceptual, methodological, evidential, ethical, or reporting problems limit reliability.
1 Unacceptable Does not meet minimum scholarly, ethical, methodological, or scope requirements.
Assessment Dimension Suggested Rating
Relevance to focus and scope 1   2   3   4   5
Originality and significance 1   2   3   4   5
Theoretical and literature foundation 1   2   3   4   5
Methodological quality and ethical compliance 1   2   3   4   5
Validity and clarity of results or findings 1   2   3   4   5
Depth of discussion and contribution 1   2   3   4   5
Organization, language, and presentation 1   2   3   4   5

6. Writing the Review Report

A useful report should be specific, proportionate, and organized as follows:

1
Brief SummaryState the manuscript's purpose, approach, and principal contribution in neutral terms.
2
Overall AssessmentIdentify principal strengths and the most important limitations.
3
Major CommentsList issues affecting validity, interpretation, originality, ethics, methods, or the central argument. Explain what is required and why.
4
Minor CommentsIdentify localized issues involving clarity, terminology, presentation, references, tables, figures, or formatting.
5
Confidential Comments to the EditorReport suspected misconduct, conflicts, or sensitive concerns only through the confidential OJS field.
6
RecommendationSelect the category that best reflects the manuscript's current scholarly quality.

Comments must address the manuscript rather than the authors. Personal criticism, insulting language, unsupported allegations, discriminatory remarks, and demands unrelated to scholarly improvement are unacceptable. Reviewers are not expected to copyedit or rewrite the manuscript.

7. Recommendation Categories

Accept SubmissionThe manuscript meets scholarly and ethical requirements, with no substantive revision required.
Revisions RequiredThe manuscript is fundamentally sound; limited corrections or clarifications can be verified by the editor.
Resubmit for ReviewSubstantial revision is required and the revised manuscript should undergo another peer-review round.
Decline SubmissionFundamental scope, originality, methodological, evidential, or ethical problems cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
Reviewers must not promise acceptance or publication. The editor may reach a decision different from an individual recommendation after considering all reports and relevant editorial information.

8. Research-Integrity Concerns

Reviewers should promptly and confidentially alert the editor when they identify a possible ethical concern, including substantial overlap, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image alteration, undisclosed competing interests, unethical research procedures, citation manipulation, authorship concerns, or other suspected misconduct.

Reviewers should provide sufficient factual detail or source information but must not investigate authors independently, contact their institution, make public allegations, or communicate suspicions directly to the authors. The journal will address concerns under its publication-ethics and correction, retraction, or removal policies.

9. Timeliness and Post-Review Obligations

  • Submit the report within the deadline shown in OJS or request an extension promptly.
  • Respond to editorial requests for clarification when reasonably possible.
  • Evaluate a revised manuscript against prior review points and any new material.
  • After completing the assignment, securely delete locally stored manuscript files and retain confidentiality.
  • Do not use unpublished information, ideas, methods, or data obtained through review for personal or competitive advantage.

10. Editorial Independence and Reviewer Recognition

Reviewer selection, reviewer reports, and editorial decisions are independent of article-processing charges, optional administrative services, institutional status, sponsorship, advertising, or commercial considerations. Reviewers are not informed of an author's payment status.

Peer review is normally undertaken voluntarily as a professional contribution to scholarly communication. Any acknowledgement of reviewer service must preserve the confidentiality of individual manuscript assignments unless disclosure has been explicitly agreed by all relevant parties and permitted by journal policy.

11. Reviewer Communication

Questions about an invitation, deadline, conflict of interest, technical issue, ethical concern, or review procedure should be communicated through OJS or the journal's official contact channel. Include the OJS submission identification number when available, but do not include confidential manuscript material in an unsecured public message.

Contact the Editorial Office Social Sciences Journal — Universitas Dehasen Bengkulu Journal Contact Page
Policy Basis and Transparency Statement This guidance should be read together with the journal's Focus and Scope, Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics Policy, Privacy Statement, and correction and retraction policies. Reference frameworks: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers; Scopus Content Policy and Selection; and Permendiktisaintek No. 9 of 2026 on Scientific Journal Accreditation.
Publication of this page supports transparent and consistent editorial practice but does not by itself guarantee national accreditation or Scopus inclusion. Policy version: August 2026.