Thank you for supporting the quality and integrity of DJSG through peer review.
1. Role of the Reviewer
Reviewers provide independent, expert assessment of submitted manuscripts to help the editorial board make informed publication decisions. Reviews must be objective, constructive, and respectful of the authors’ efforts.
2. Accepting and Completing a Review
- Respond to review invitations within 5 working days.
- Complete and submit the review within 3 weeks of accepting the assignment.
- If you cannot meet the deadline, notify the editorial office immediately and, where possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.
- Decline the invitation if you lack sufficient expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
3. Review Criteria
Evaluate the manuscript against the following criteria:
| Criteria | Guide Question |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the study address a significant issue in sustainable governance? |
| Originality | Does it make a new contribution to knowledge or practice? |
| Theoretical grounding | Is the conceptual or theoretical framework sound and clearly articulated? |
| Methodology | Are the research design and methods appropriate and rigorously applied? |
| Analysis and results | Are findings clearly presented, accurate, and well-supported by data? |
| Conclusions | Do conclusions follow logically from the results and address the objectives? |
| Literature review | Is the review current, relevant, and appropriately cited? |
| Clarity and structure | Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and free of ambiguity? |
| Ethics compliance | Are ethical standards met, including proper attribution and data integrity? |
4. Writing the Review
A complete review consists of two parts:
- Comments for the editor – a brief, candid summary of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, and your overall recommendation. This section is confidential.
- Comments for the author(s) – specific, numbered feedback on how to improve the manuscript. Write constructively; avoid dismissive or personal remarks. Do not reveal your identity.
Focus on substance – research design, argument, evidence, and clarity. Formatting issues need not be addressed in detail; authors are directed to the DJSG style guide separately.
5. Recommendation Options
| Recommendation | Description |
|---|---|
| Accept | Ready for publication with no or only minor typographic corrections. |
| Minor revision | Publishable with small clarifications or edits; no re-review required. |
| Major revision | Significant concerns; manuscript must be revised and re-reviewed. |
| Reject | Fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed through revision. |
6. Confidentiality
DJSG operates a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers must not disclose the identity of authors, share manuscript content, or discuss the manuscript with third parties. All materials received for review must be treated as confidential and deleted or destroyed upon completion of the review.
7. Conflicts of Interest
Decline to review if you have a personal, financial, or professional relationship with any of the authors; if you are from the same institution; or if reviewing the manuscript would confer a competitive advantage. When in doubt, disclose to the editorial office before proceeding.
8. Ethical Responsibilities
- Do not use unpublished material from the manuscript in your own work without explicit written consent from the authors.
- Flag any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication to the editorial office.
- Do not contact authors directly outside the journal’s review system.