Guide for reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for Social Science Communications (SSC). As an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal, SSC strives to provide a platform for rigorous and impactful research in the social sciences. The integrity and quality of the work we publish rely heavily on the expertise and constructive feedback provided by our esteemed reviewers.

This guide outlines the expectations and responsibilities of reviewers to help ensure a fair, thorough, and efficient peer review process.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

As a reviewer for Social Science Communications, you play a vital role in maintaining the high academic standards of the journal. Your responsibilities include:

  1. Assessing Manuscripts Objectively:
    Reviewers are tasked with evaluating submitted manuscripts based on their originality, clarity, contribution to the field, methodology, and overall quality. Your review should be impartial, free from conflicts of interest, and based on the academic merit of the work.
  2. Providing Constructive Feedback:
    It is essential that reviewers provide clear, actionable feedback to authors. Highlight the strengths of the paper as well as areas for improvement. Your comments should guide the authors in improving their work, whether that involves refining arguments, clarifying concepts, or addressing methodological concerns.
  3. Evaluating Methodological Soundness:
    The rigor of the research methodology is a core aspect of the review. Reviewers should carefully evaluate whether the research design, data collection, and analysis methods are appropriate and well-executed. Point out any weaknesses or inconsistencies in the methods, and suggest ways to improve them.
  4. Maintaining Confidentiality:
    All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any content from the manuscript for personal advantage. The peer review process should be conducted with the utmost respect for the authors' intellectual property.
  5. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest:
    If you have any potential conflicts of interest—whether personal, academic, or financial—that may affect your ability to provide an unbiased review, you must disclose them to the journal’s editorial team. If a conflict of interest exists, you may be asked to recuse yourself from reviewing the manuscript.
  6. Timely Completion of Reviews:
    We ask that reviewers complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe. Timely reviews ensure that the editorial process runs smoothly and that authors receive feedback promptly. If you are unable to meet the deadline for any reason, please inform the editorial team as early as possible.

 Review Process

Upon receiving a manuscript for review, you should:

Evaluate the Relevance and Significance:
Determine if the manuscript is relevant to the scope of Social Science Communications and if it offers significant insights into the field. Consider the paper's potential impact on current discussions, practices, or policies in the social sciences.

Assess Structure and Clarity:
Review the organization and structure of the manuscript. The paper should be well-organized, logically structured, and clearly written. Look for any areas where the manuscript may be confusing or where additional explanations might be needed.

Provide Specific Suggestions:
Where appropriate, offer specific suggestions for improvement. For example, if an argument is underdeveloped or unclear, suggest how the author can strengthen it. If the methodology is lacking, recommend how the design could be improved or better explained.

Make a Recommendation:
At the end of your review, you will be asked to provide a recommendation. This may include:

- Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal or no revisions.

- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be published.

- Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.

- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

Your recommendation should be based on the overall quality and contribution of the manuscript, as well as the extent of revisions required.

Ethical Considerations