Reviewer Guideline

1. Introduction

The peer review process is essential to maintaining the high standards ofthe International Journal of Art, Social, and Managerial Sciences (IJASMS).  We rely on the expertise and dedication of our reviewers to provide constructive and fair evaluations of submitted manuscripts. This document outlines the responsibilities and procedures for reviewers.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

2.1 Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Do not discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial team unless authorized by the editor.

2.2 Objectivity and Fairness

  • Provide an objective and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Avoid personal criticism of the author(s); focus on the content and quality of the work.

2.3 Conflict of Interest

  • Notify the editor if you have any potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, or professional) with the authors or the content of the manuscript.
  • Decline the review if a conflict of interest exists.

3. Review Process

3.1 Initial Evaluation

  • Assess the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and objectives.
  • Ensure the manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.

3.2 Detailed Evaluation

Reviewers should focus on the following aspects:

3.2.1 Title and Abstract

  • Is the title clear and concise?
  • Does the abstract accurately reflect the content and key findings of the manuscript?

3.2.2 Introduction

  • Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated?
  • Is the significance of the study adequately explained?

3.2.3 Methodology

  • Are the methods described in sufficient detail for replication?
  • Are the study design, sample size, and data analysis appropriate?

3.2.4 Results

  • Are the results clearly presented and logically organized?
  • Do the tables and figures effectively complement the text?

3.2.5 Discussion

  • Are the results interpreted appropriately in the context of existing research?
  • Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the data?

3.2.6 References

  • Are the references relevant and up-to-date?
  • Is the citation style consistent with the journal’s guidelines?

4. Reviewer's Report

4.1 Structure

  • Provide a summary of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
  • Offer specific, constructive feedback for improvement.

4.2 Recommendation

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before acceptance.
  • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes and a second round of review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

4.3 Feedback to Authors

  • Offer clear and specific suggestions for improvement.
  • Highlight both positive aspects and areas that need enhancement.
  • Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout your comments.

5. Timeliness

  • Complete the review within the specified timeframe (usually 2-4 weeks).
  • Inform the editor promptly if you require an extension.

6. Ethical Considerations

  • Ensure that the manuscript does not contain any plagiarized content.
  • Be alert to potential ethical issues, such as data fabrication or falsification.