Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

International Social Research Nexus (ISRN)
Published by Scholar Cave

  1. Introduction

The International Social Research Nexus (ISRN) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to maintain academic excellence and ensure the publication of high-quality, original research. Reviewers play a crucial role in upholding these standards by providing constructive, fair, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the review process.
  • Provide unbiased, objective, and constructive feedback.
  • Evaluate the originality, significance, clarity, methodology, and ethical standards of the manuscript.
  • Identify any plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or duplicate publication concerns.
  • Declare any conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Submit their review reports within the agreed deadline.
  1. Review Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following:

  1. Originality & Significance
  • Does the manuscript present novel insights, perspectives, or findings?
  • Is the research relevant and significant to the field of social sciences?
  1. Clarity & Organization
  • Is the manuscript well-structured and logically presented?
  • Are the arguments clear and well-supported?
  1. Methodological Rigor
  • Is the research design appropriate and sound?
  • Are the data collection and analysis methods valid and reliable?
  • Does the manuscript provide sufficient details to allow replication?
  1. Literature Review & Theoretical Framework
  • Does the manuscript engage critically with relevant literature?
  • Is the theoretical framework appropriate and well-integrated?
  1. Ethical Considerations
  • Does the study comply with ethical research guidelines?
  • Are issues related to human subjects, informed consent, or data privacy properly addressed?
  1. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers should provide a structured report, including:

  1. Summary of the Manuscript
  • Briefly summarize the key contributions of the paper.
  1. Major Strengths
  • Highlight significant contributions or strengths of the study.
  1. Key Concerns & Areas for Improvement
  • Address methodological, conceptual, or structural weaknesses.
  • Suggest revisions or clarifications needed.
  1. Minor Revisions
  • Point out minor errors in writing, formatting, or referencing.
  1. Final Recommendation
  • Accept as is
  • Minor Revisions required
  • Major Revisions required
  • Reject due to fundamental flaws
  1. Confidentiality & Ethical Responsibilities
  • Reviewers must not disclose any information about the manuscript.
  • Reviewers must not use unpublished material for their own research.
  • If a reviewer recognizes a conflict of interest, they must decline the review.
  1. Review Timeline & Submission
  • Reviews should be completed within 2-3 weeks of receiving the manuscript.
  • The review report should be submitted via the journal’s online submission system.
  1. Recognition & Acknowledgment
  • Reviewers contributing high-quality and timely reviews will be recognized annually.

ISRN offers certificates of appreciation for outstanding reviewers.

 

Competing Interests

Reviewers must declare any competing interests before accepting a review assignment. A competing interest is any factor that could influence—or be perceived to influence—the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript.

  1. Types of Competing Interests

Reviewers should disclose if they:

  • Have a personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors.
  • Are collaborators or close colleagues of the authors.
  • Have recently co-authored publications with any of the authors.
  • Work at the same institution as any of the authors.
  • Have financial interests (grants, funding, or industry ties) related to the study.
  • Have strong academic or ideological biases that could affect impartial judgment.
  1. Actions Required

If a competing interest exists, the reviewer should:

  • Inform the editorial team immediately and decline the review if necessary.
  • If uncertain, consult the journal editor for guidance.

Transparency in declaring competing interests helps maintain the integrity, fairness, and credibility of the peer review process at ISRN.