Reviewer Guidelines

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you in advance for reviewing the manuscripts assigned to you. While reviewing the paper, please emphasize the format of the paper to include the title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Data Analysis, Findings, Discussion, Conclusion, Implications, and References in APA style. Please keep the comments in a constructive tone and try to provide the author(s) with constructive ideas for how they might improve upon their submission as they develop their research. Authors deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of your evaluation of their work.

1. Benefits of Being a Reviewer

- An opportunity to advance scientific knowledge and contribute to the social sciences’ academic community.

- Recognition for your expertise and contributions to your academic career as a reviewer of an international journal.

- Networking opportunities with fellow researchers, scholars, and professionals in your field.

- Access to the latest research findings and emerging trends in various social science disciplines.

- A chance to enhance research standards and promote the dissemination of high-quality research.

- The reviewers will be provided with a certificate of review upon request and adherence to the aforementioned guidelines for a successful review.

2. Privacy

During the peer review process, it is essential to maintain the highest level of confidentiality regarding manuscripts. Reviewers are obligated to keep this confidentiality and must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone who is not involved in the peer review process. In exceptional circumstances, reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group upon request. Such consultations should be conducted with the understanding that the confidentiality of the manuscript is preserved. Before engaging in these discussions, reviewers must inform the Sectional Editor or the Managing Editor overseeing the manuscript. Additionally, reviewers should note the names of the colleagues involved in the “Comments to the editor” section of their review report. The identities of the reviewers will remain anonymous to the authors unless the reviewers choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report.

3. Instructions for Reviewer

  • Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools or platforms to evaluate or generate feedback on the manuscript.
  • The reviewers must not comment on the PDF or Word file; rather, they are required to fill out the reviewer form only.
  • The reviewer must base their assessment on their expertise and judgement after reading the paper entirely.
  • The journal expects reviewers to submit an accurate, unbiased, and ethically responsible assessment that reflects high academic integrity.
  • Reviewers are requested to fill out the review form constructively and comprehensively.
  • Comments intended for the authors must be clearly distinguished from confidential comments directed to the editor.
  • The reviewer should include realistic and actionable suggestions for improvement.
  • Reviewers are advised to provide specific and precise suggestions and to refrain from overly general or vague statements (e.g., “the manuscript requires major revision,” “the literature review or data collection is weak,”).

4. Reviewer Evaluation Form

Introduction

  • The manuscript’s title reflects the content.
  • The research problem is well-constructed and explained.
  • Is the research aim clearly stated and well-motivated?
  • To what extent does the article contribute to the existing theoretical foundation based on its rationality and objectives of the study?
  • Is the paper of professional/industrial relevance?

Literature Review and Theory

  • Is the theoretical framework clearly articulated and logically constructed?
  • Are concepts and theories well defined?
  • The hypotheses or propositions follow logically from the theory.
  • Is the literature review robust and appropriate?

Method

  • Are design, sampling, and data collection clearly explained and justified?
  • Are the measures/instruments used for the study well defined?
  • Are analytical methods appropriate and transparent?

Findings

  • Are results clearly presented and plausibly interpreted?
  • Are limitations addressed and alternative explanations considered?
  • Are conceptual insights original, transferable, and clearly articulated? (Conceptual papers only)
  • Is the scope of contribution discussed?
  • Is the reasoning clear, precise, and persuasive?

Manuscript format and readability

  • Do all sections align conceptually and structurally?
  • Are there areas where development suggestions would help?
  • Is the paper too long?

Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion stimulate discussion or debate?
  • Are implications for theory, practice, and society thoughtfully developed?
  • Are novel insights offered that extend existing literature?

References

  • References are in accordance with APA style.
  • Have the author/s used up-to-date references related to the paper?

Recommendation

  • Accepted without revisions
  • Accepted with minor revisions
  • Accepted with major revisions
  • Rejected