Instructions and Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

1. The Peer Review Process
1.1 Double-Blind Peer Review System

  • The journal adheres to a Double-Blind Peer Review system. The identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process to ensure impartiality.

1.2 Preliminary Evaluation

  • At the first level, the editors check the articles for the fulfilment of the primary criteria. If an article does not fulfil the criteria, it is not sent for peer review, and the author is informed about non-selection: 
    • Originality of research: The article needs to offer a significant amount of originality.
    • Relevance of research: The research presented in an article needs to be relevant to the scope of the journal and the current context.
    • Validity of research: The research needs to be done following proper methods: qualitative or quantitative or mixed. Reviewers may suggest modification in an approach or reject an article completely if a proper method is not followed.
    • Citability of research: A research paper needs to have the potential to be cited by other authors in a particular field.
  • The Chief Editor or Managing Editor initially evaluates all submitted articles. This evaluation assesses whether the article meets the journal’s standards and scope.
  • If an article does not meet the primary standards, it is rejected, and the author is promptly informed of the decision.

1.3 Selection of Reviewers

  • If the preliminary evaluation is satisfactory, two reviewers (one from the editorial board and one from the pool of external reviewers) is selected for a detailed review of the article.
  • This rule also applies to the members of the Editorial Board.

2. Instructions for Reviewers
2.1. Confidentiality and Objectivity

  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts and the review process. Do not share or discuss the content with anyone outside the review process.
  • Provide an objective and unbiased review, avoiding personal criticism of the author.

2.2 Timeliness

  • Complete the review within the stipulated time frame. If you are unable to meet the deadline, inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

2.3 Constructive Feedback as per the Feedback Form

  • Offer constructive and detailed feedback to help the author improve their manuscript.
  • Highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Suggest specific improvements and provide clear reasons for your recommendations.

2.4 Ethical Considerations

  • Ensure that the manuscript adheres to ethical standards, including proper citation of sources and avoidance of plagiarism and Generative AI.
  • Report any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office.

2.5 Evaluation Criteria

  • Originality: Assess whether the research presents new and significant findings. Determine whether the work offers a fresh perspective or contributes significantly to the existing body of knowledge.
  • Relevance to the Field: Evaluate the relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope and to the broader fields of humanities as mentioned in the Scope of the journal. Consider whether the work addresses important questions or issues within the discipline.
  • Title: Check the appropriateness of the title and suggest modifications if necessary. 
  • Abstract: Suggest how to improve the Abstract.
  • Keywords: Check the appropriateness of the Keywords.
  • Introduction: Suggest improvement if any.
  • Theoretical Framework: Examine the theoretical framework and its appropriateness for the study. Ensure that the author has a strong understanding of relevant theories and concepts and uses them effectively in their analysis.
  • Methodology: Evaluate the appropriateness and rigour of the research methods used.
  • Discussion: Ensure that the manuscript is well-written and clearly presents its arguments and findings.
    • Ensure that the manuscript develops arguments and establishes points through detailed analysis supported by textual references and established critical opinions.
    • Confirm that inline citations are used to support arguments following APA. Verify the accuracy of citations, as new discoveries and insights may emerge over time.
    • Check that the manuscript incorporates the latest and existing scholarship in the area.
    • If the latest research is not available in full-fledged research articles, ensure alternative sources such as interviews, book reviews, newspaper or magazine articles, and news items are utilized.
    • Verify that discussions are broken under subheadings based on the argument to ensure thematic coherence and critical soundness. Ensure all paragraphs are thematically linked.
  • Avoiding First-Person Views and Biases: Check that the manuscript avoids using first-person view and pronouns. Ensure the manuscript refrains from making activist utterances and avoids gender, language, culture, and racial bias and overstatements.
  • References: Check that the references are relevant and up-to-date. Ensure the manuscript avoids creating endnotes or footnotes and integrates points within the body of the article.
  • Attribution and Citation: Ensure that all content, ideas, or quotations are properly attributed and cited using APA citation style.
  • Use of Copyrighted Material: Verify that substantial portions of copyrighted material are not used without permission from the copyright holder. In case of any doubt, report to the journal. 
  • Fair Use Doctrine: Check whether copyrighted material is within the fair use guidelines, especially for educational or research purposes.
  • Plagiarism: Ensure the manuscript avoids plagiarism by adequately attributing all sources and representing the author’s original contribution.
  • Reproduction of Images and Figures: Ensure that permission has been obtained to reproduce any images, figures, or tables from other works. Verify proper attribution of the source for any reproduced material.
  • Self-Plagiarism: Check that the manuscript avoids self-plagiarism by not reusing the author’s previously published work without proper citation. Ensure that any content from past publications is appropriately cited and does not constitute duplicate publication.
  • Permission for Adapted Material: Confirm that permission has been obtained for any material adapted or modified from copyrighted sources. Verify that the manuscript clearly indicates that the material has been adapted and provides the necessary attribution.

2.6 Recommendation

  • Provide a clear recommendation to the editorial office following the Peer Review Template: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.
  • Justify your recommendation with specific comments and evidence from the manuscript.
  • Use MS Word’s inbuilt Review System to insert your comments inside the manuscript by anonymising the User Name.

2.7 Conflict of Interest Disclosure

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might bias your review.