Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Digital Social Sciences relies on a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly value of published research. The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining academic standards and supporting editorial decision-making. Reviews should be objective, constructive, evidence-based, and completed within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly and impartially;
  • Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript materials;
  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest;
  • Provide clear and constructive feedback to authors;
  • Notify the editors of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or research misconduct.

Reviewers should decline review invitations if they lack sufficient expertise in the subject area or are unable to complete the review within a reasonable period.

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following aspects:

  • Originality and novelty of the research;
  • Relevance to the field of social sciences;
  • Clarity of research objectives and arguments;
  • Adequacy of the literature review;
  • Appropriateness of the methodology and analysis;
  • Quality and interpretation of findings;
  • Organization, coherence, and academic writing;
  • Contribution to existing scholarship;
  • Compliance with ethical and citation standards.

Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Recommendations are advisory in nature. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor.

Editorial Decision Process

Each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess its suitability, originality, ethical compliance, and alignment with the journal's scope. Manuscripts that pass this stage are sent to at least two independent reviewers.

Following peer review, the editorial team evaluates reviewer reports and reaches a decision. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, additional expert review may be sought.

Authors receive the editorial decision together with anonymized reviewer comments.

Revision and Re-evaluation

Where revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response explaining how reviewer comments have been addressed. Revised submissions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Confidentiality and Ethics

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers may not share, distribute, or use unpublished content for personal, professional, or research purposes.

Digital Social Sciences is committed to ethical publishing and follows internationally recognized standards concerning peer review, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and research integrity.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed independently, and additional expert opinions may be obtained where appropriate.

The journal appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing.