Reviewer Guidelines

BEFORE YOU REVIEW

You will receive a notification via OJS and email inviting you to review an article or book review submission, with the option to accept or decline the invitation. Before making your decision, please consider the following points.

TIME

Journal editors are looking for reviews that are thorough and specific. If you are unsure whether you have the capacity to deliver that level of quality, you can always recommend a colleague who has more free time. If you might like to review for the journal when you are less busy, don’t forget to let the editor know.

BEST MATCH

The editor may not be familiar with the finer details of your work, so you are best placed to judge whether you have the expertise required. To help the editor match you with the right paper, please keep your ScholarOne accounts up to date with relevant keywords and institutional details.

DEADLINES

If an editor asks you to carry out a review, it’s a good idea to respond confirming you’ve received their request, even if you are unsure yet whether you will accept. The period of time allocated for the review will vary per journal and the editor will inform you of the time-frame when they invite you. 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Reviewers must fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with JSR's Publication Ethics and Transparency Policy. Disclosing a conflict of interest does not automatically disqualify a reviewer but enables the editorial team to assess the situation and make an informed decision. Potential conflicts of interest include:

  • Being affiliated with the same department or institution as an author;
  • Having previously co-authored publications with an author; or
  • Having professional or financial relationships related to the research under review.

RESPOND TO YOUR REVIEW REQUEST

You can accept or decline your review request from your invite email. For journals and case studies, the manuscript or case will be sent to your reviewer centre on our editorial system, which you can access directly from your email.

REVIEW THE MANUSCRIPT

Reviewers of Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif (JSR) are expected to evaluate submitted manuscripts based on their academic substance, sociological relevance, and scholarly quality, using the following criteria:

  1. Research Significance and Relevance: Assess the importance of the research topic and its relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
  2. Originality: Evaluate the originality of the research and its contribution to existing scholarship.
  3. Research Gap and State of the Art: Examine whether the research gap is clearly identified and adequately supported by a critical engagement with relevant literature.
  4. Sociological Contribution: Assess the extent to which the study advances sociological knowledge, theoretical perspectives, or understanding of social phenomena.
  5. Methodological Rigor: Evaluate the appropriateness of the research design, data collection procedures, and analytical methods in relation to the research objectives.
  6. Data Analysis and Findings: Examine the validity, consistency, and adequacy of the evidence supporting the research findings.
  7. Sociological Analysis and Discussion: Assess the depth of sociological interpretation, the coherence of the discussion, and the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the findings.
  8. Publication Ethics: Identify potential ethical concerns and assess compliance with established principles of research and publication integrity.

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers are responsible for identifying and reporting suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or other potential violations of publication ethics encountered during manuscript evaluation.

JSR implements a two-stage research integrity assessment, beginning with preliminary editorial screening and continuing through the peer review process. Any ethical concerns identified by reviewers will be examined by the editorial team in accordance with JSR's publication ethics policies and the relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

All reviewers must provide objective, fair, constructive, evidence-based, and academically justified evaluations, ensuring that their recommendations are supported by clear scholarly arguments rather than personal preferences or subjective judgments.