Instructions for Reviewers

The selection of reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the area under consideration in the manuscript. The selection process ensures that reviewers have the necessary qualifications and knowledge to rigorously and impartially evaluate manuscripts. Factors considered in selecting reviewers include:

• Academic and professional expertise relevant to the content of the submitted manuscript,
• Previous experience in academic publishing, such as peer-reviewed journals or publishing in the field,
• Impartiality and absence of conflict of interest with the authors of the manuscript and
• Availability to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe.

In some cases, editors may select reviewers based on author recommendations or suggestions from the Editorial Board. Each received manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers to ensure a balanced and fair enough evaluation of the paper. This procedure helps to provide a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript, ensuring that all aspects of the paper are adequately assessed and reviewed.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers play a key role in maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publishing. Their primary responsibilities include:

• A thorough assessment of the manuscript in terms of significance, originality, methodology and accuracy,
• Providing constructive feedback to authors to improve the clarity, quality and scientific rigor of the manuscript,
• Identifying weaknesses or deficiencies in the manuscript that could affect its validity, reproduction or interpretation,
• Recommending a decision on the manuscript, including its acceptance, revision (minor or major) or rejection, based on the done review and
• Reporting any conflict of interest or bias that could affect the review process.

Ethics of the review process

Reviewers must adhere to high ethical standards during the review process, including:

• Objectivity – reviewers should provide an unbiased assessment of the manuscript. Reviews should be based on the quality of the research, not personal opinions or preferences,
• Fairness – all authors should be treated equally, and reviews should be based on the content of the manuscript, not on the identity of the author,
• Respect for intellectual property rights – reviewers must not plagiarize and must not use or disseminate ideas, data or submitted materials from the manuscript without proper citation,
• Confidentiality of the procedure and submitted materials – peer review is a confidential process, while reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and all related materials and
• Avoidance of conflicts of interest – reviewers must not have personal ties to the authors and must not have financial or commercial interests related to the topic of the manuscript.

If reviewers feel that they cannot provide an unbiased evaluation due to any of the listed conflicts, they should withdraw from the review process.

The review process

Each submitted paper is subject to a procedure for checking the compliance of the manuscript with the technical instructions for authors and a double anonymous review. Before the paper will be sent to the reviewers, the Editorial Board evaluates whether the paper is suitable for publication in the Journal, taking into account its form, content and treated thematic area.

The goal of peer review is to make it easier for the Editorial Board members to make a decision on whether the received manuscript should be accepted for publication or rejected, or to improve the quality of the article, through possible corrections suggested by the reviewers. Reviewers are selected exclusively according to their areas of expertise, that is, whether they have the relevant knowledge for evaluating the submitted work. In order to prevent a conflict of interest, the reviewer and the author/s must not come from the same institution.

The complete procedure, from the application to the acceptance/rejection of the manuscript, can be followed on the online platform of the Journal of Social Sciences. As a part of each assigned manuscript review, the reviewer should also complete a review form from the Journal's website. If submitting a review for the Journal for the first time, the reviewer must create a user account by selecting the registration option. Each time the reviewer accesses this section, he/she logs in using the username and created password when he/she posts his/her review on the Journal's online platform. Optionally, the reviewer can also send the completed review sheet to the e-mail address of the Editorial Board Office.

When reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer should evaluate the following aspects of the paper:

• whether the paper corresponds to the domain of the Journal of Social Sciences,
• adequacy of the title, abstract and keywords,
• the structure of the manuscript, its subject of research and the scientific methods used,
• presented research results and conclusions,
• clarity, language and style of work, as well as
• topicality of the cited literature sources.

Whether the reviewer repeats the same procedure after the Editorial Board receives the corrected version of the manuscript will depend on the extent of the requested changes. The reviewer should also ensure that the manuscript meets fundamental ethical guidelines and that is not based on false or plagiarized data. Reviewers typically have 2-4 weeks to complete their review process. If they need more time, they should contact the Editorial board and ask for an extension. Timely reviews are critical to maintaining an efficient publishing process.

Preparation of review reports

Reviewers should prepare a detailed review report, which includes:

• Proposal for manuscript categorization,
• Written summary and evaluation of the structure of the manuscript, i.e. a brief description of the research objectives, methodology, findings and conclusions,
• Evaluation of the manuscript scientific value, that is, assessment of the validity of applied research methods, results and conclusions,
• Evaluation of the quality of the manuscript, i.e. the positive aspects that should be highlighted,
• Areas for manuscript improvement, that is, specific feedback on where authors can improve their work, including issues that need to be clarified or additional research that needs to be done and
• Recommendations, that is, the review decision itself (acceptance, minor changes and additions, significant changes and additions, rejection of the manuscript) with an explanation of the recommended suggestions.

Reviewers should be constructive enough in their feedback, by offering suggestions for improving the manuscript, while respecting the principles of ethics and professionalism.