Guidelines for Reviewers

Ethical Obligations
Confidentiality
The entire review process is strictly confidential. Do not share or discuss the manuscript or your review with anyone outside of the IJSD editorial team unless explicitly authorized. Reviewers must also avoid using or citing any information, data, or ideas from the manuscript in their own research until the work has been officially published.

Conflict of Interest
 You must decline the review if you have any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the manuscript. If you are uncertain whether a potential conflict exists, please contact the editorial office immediately for clarification.

Anonymity of the Review Process
The IJSD operates a double-blind peer review process. To preserve the integrity of this system, you must not disclose your identity to the authors or include any self-identifying information within your review comments or the submitted report.

Plagiarism and Ethical Concerns
The IJSD maintains a strict plagiarism threshold. If you detect unusually high levels of text overlap or any evidence of unethical practices (such as data fabrication or inadequate consent), you must notify the editorial team immediately.

Conduct and Standards
Timeliness
Please aim to submit your complete review within the agreed-upon timeframe, which is typically two to four weeks. If you require an extension, inform the editorial office as soon as possible, as timely reviews benefit the entire publication cycle.

Scope and Relevance
Your assessment should first confirm that the manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of the IJSD and offers a meaningful contribution to the broad field of social sciences. You should specifically comment on the relevance, originality, and potential impact of the research.

Quality of Writing
Please comment on the overall clarity, organization, and readability of the manuscript. While authors are experts in their field, they may require assistance in refining their writing. If the language quality is significantly unclear or ungrammatical, recommend that the authors seek professional language editing.

Constructive Feedback 
Your feedback must be clear, specific, and constructive, aimed solely at improving the manuscript. Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the report; harsh or dismissive language is strongly discouraged.

Review Structure
Your completed review should systematically address the following elements:

●    Summary of the Paper: Provide a concise summary of the manuscript, highlighting the main research objectives, methods, and core conclusions. This confirms whether the authors' key points were conveyed clearly.
●    Major Comments: Identify all significant issues requiring substantial attention or revision:
       -   Research Design: Critique the appropriateness of the methodology and whether the chosen approach logically supports the research objectives.
       -   Data & Analysis: Assess the quality and sufficiency of the data presented and evaluate the rigor and correctness of the statistical or qualitative analysis.
       -   Findings & Conclusions: Determine if the conclusions drawn are logically sound and well-supported by the empirical data presented in the study.
       -   Originality & Contribution: Offer a final assessment of the novelty and intellectual contribution of the research to the social sciences discipline.
●    Minor Comments: Suggest improvements related to clarity, writing style, overall structure, or formatting. Point out minor inconsistencies, minor inaccuracies, or areas needing only brief clarification.
●    Recommendation: Based on your comprehensive assessment, provide one of the following recommendations:
       -   Accept as is
       -   Minor revisions (suitable for minor clarity issues, minor data corrections, or light editing)
       -   Major revisions (requires substantial changes to methodology, analysis, or presentation)
       -   Reject (fundamentally flawed or outside the journal's scope)

Re-Review Process
If the manuscript is returned to the authors for major revisions, you may be invited to review the revised manuscript. If so, your task will be to ensure that the authors have adequately and fully addressed the concerns and suggestions raised in your initial report.