Peer Review Process and Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Process

The Journal observes double-blind peer review system where both the identities of the reviewer and the contributor are kept confidential from each other. A minimum of two independent reviewers is normally required for every research article. The Editor will consider peer reviewers' comments and recommendations when deciding whether to accept or reject a manuscript.

1. Initial screening process of the Editorial Board. Prior to the review process, initial screening is done by the members of the editorial board to guarantee the appropriateness of the manuscript for publication. The editorial board checks the following elements of the manuscripts: referencing standards, grammar, plagiarism, and other technical standards. Also, the editorial board reserves the right to filter manuscripts that are irrelevant to the Journal’s theme.

2. Blind peer-review process. The Journal observes double-blind peer review system where both the identities of the reviewer and the contributor are kept confidential from each other. Since the review process could be tedious, we ask for the patience of the author.

3. Notice of acceptance or rejection. Based on the feedback from the referees or reviewers, the author will be informed whether the Editorial Board has decided to accept or reject the submission for publication. In many cases, the author is tasked to revise one’s submission based on the recommendations of the referees and the Editorial Board. Both the reviewers and the Editorial Board have the final say whether to include the manuscript or not in the Journal.

4. Notice to publish. A notice to publish will be sent to the author once the recommended revisions are addressed. In this stage, we require full cooperation from the author as this stage involves editing the style, format, grammar, and layout of the accepted submission.

5. All accepted manuscripts for publication are copyedited, proofread, and sent back to the contributor for approval of significant/substantial editorial changes. However, the editor reserves the right to make minor changes for clarity and accuracy without seeking the author’s permission.

 

Reviewer Guidelines

The Social Sciences and Development Review (SSDR) follows a double-blind peer-review process to ensure an objective and fair evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, impartial, and confidential assessments that will assist the editors and authors in improving the quality of the manuscript.

1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Manuscripts and their contents must not be shared, discussed, copied, or disclosed to any third party without authorization from the Editorial Office. Reviewers must not upload or submit manuscripts to artificial intelligence (AI) tools or other external platforms.

2. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline an invitation if they have a personal, professional, financial, or academic conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity. They should immediately inform the Editorial Office of any potential conflict.

3. Expertise and Timeliness

Reviewers should accept an assignment only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and when they can complete the review within the specified period. If they are unable to review the manuscript, they are encouraged to recommend another qualified reviewer, when appropriate.

4. Evaluation of the Manuscript

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on, among others:

  • relevance to the scope and readership of SSDR;
  • originality and significance of the research;
  • clarity of the research problem and objectives;
  • adequacy and appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  • appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology;
  • presentation and analysis of findings;
  • coherence of the discussion and conclusions;
  • adequacy and relevance of references;
  • organization, clarity, and academic quality of writing; and
  • adherence to ethical research and publication standards.

5. Constructive Feedback

Comments should be specific, objective, and respectful. Reviewers should clearly identify major concerns that affect the validity or quality of the manuscript and distinguish these from minor revisions involving clarity, grammar, formatting, or presentation.

Personal, offensive, discriminatory, or unnecessarily hostile remarks should not be included in the review.

6. Research and Publication Ethics

Reviewers should alert the Editorial Office if they identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential ethical concerns. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor and should not be disclosed to the author unless instructed by the Editorial Office.

7. Recommendation

Reviewers are asked to provide a recommendation based on their assessment, such as:

  • Accept
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Revise and Resubmit/Major Revisions
  • Reject

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should not use generative AI or other AI tools to process, analyze, summarize, or evaluate confidential manuscripts unless expressly authorized by the journal. Reviewers remain responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscript and for the accuracy and integrity of their review.

9. Reviewer Conduct

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and professional conduct. Reviewers should promptly communicate with the Editorial Office regarding any concern that may affect their ability to provide an independent and timely review.