Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining CJSS quality and integrity. We appreciate expert reviewers who evaluate submissions impartially and constructively. Key reviewer responsibilities include:

Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a private document. The work and any accompanying data must not be shared or discussed with anyone other than the handling editor.
Objectivity: Assess the manuscript on scholarly merit only. Provide fair, unbiased critiques, focusing on the research design, validity of results, clarity of presentation, and contribution to the field. Avoid personal or derogatory language. Comments should be professional and courteous.
Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks). If unable to meet the deadline or conflict arises, notify the editor immediately so that an alternate reviewer can be assigned.
Conflict of Interest: Decline or recuse yourself from reviewing if you have any conflict (e.g., same institution or recent collaboration with authors, direct competition, or financial ties). Inform the editor of any potential conflicts before accepting a review.
Ethical Concerns: Alert the editor to any suspicions of ethical issues, such as possible plagiarism, redundant publication, or ethical breaches in the research. For instance, if you suspect text reuse without citation or duplicate submission elsewhere, report this confidentially to the editor.
Contribution: Provide specific, actionable feedback. Highlight major strengths and weaknesses. Suggest improvements to figures, methodology, or interpretation if needed. Your role is to help authors enhance the work’s quality.

Our peer-review process is double-blind, so reviewers will not know author identities, and should not attempt to guess them or reveal their own identity in comments. All reviews are kept confidential with the editorial team.