1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is essential to maintaining the academic quality and credibility of the Journal of Social Practices. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback that enhances the scholarly merit and clarity of the submitted manuscripts.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and its content.
• Avoid any conflict of interest.
• Provide an objective, balanced, and evidence-based assessment.
• Adhere to the review deadline.
• Suggest improvements, not just criticisms.
• Recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection based on the journal’s quality standards.

3. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

a. Relevance and Scope

• Is the manuscript relevant to the themes and aims of the Journal of Social Practices?
• Does it contribute new insights to the field?

b. Originality and Contribution

• Does the work present original thought, research, or analysis?
• Is it a valuable contribution to current academic or practical knowledge?

c. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

• Is the theoretical grounding adequate and well-integrated?
• Are key concepts clearly defined and appropriately applied?

d. Research Design and Methodology (if applicable)

• Is the methodology appropriate and sound?
• Are sampling, tools, and data analysis techniques clearly described?

e. Argumentation and Analysis

• Are arguments coherent, logical, and well-supported by evidence?
• Is critical thinking demonstrated?

f. Structure and Clarity

• Is the paper well-organized and clearly written?
• Are headings, transitions, and formatting consistent?

g. Language and Style

• Is the language academically appropriate and grammatically sound?
• Is the tone formal and consistent with academic writing norms?

h. Ethical Considerations

• Are ethical research standards (e.g., informed consent, plagiarism) observed and documented?

4. Reviewer Comments Structure

Reviewers should organize their comments into two sections:

a. Comments for the Author

• Constructive and specific feedback addressing strengths and weaknesses.
• Suggestions for revision or improvement.
• Avoid harsh or personal remarks.

b. Confidential Comments to the Editor

• Recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject).
• Justification for the recommendation.
• Any ethical concerns or conflicts of interest.

5. Review Outcomes and Recommendations

Select one of the following outcomes:

• Accept as is
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Each recommendation must be justified based on the evaluation criteria.

6. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

• Reviewers must not share, use, or cite any part of the manuscript before publication.
• If plagiarism, duplication, or ethical misconduct is suspected, it should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

7. Timeliness of Review

Reviews should be completed within the stipulated deadline (typically 2–4 weeks). If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial team promptly.

8. Recognition and Acknowledgment

The Journal of Social Practices values the time and expertise of its reviewers. Names of outstanding reviewers may be acknowledged annually (if policy allows), and certificates can be issued upon request.