Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the integrity, quality, and credibility of research disseminated through electronic journals. This guide outlines the core responsibilities, ethical obligations, and practical procedures for reviewers in the e-journal ecosystem.

Peer review is a voluntary but vital professional obligation. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers uphold the integrity of the scholarly record, contribute to their academic community, and help authors produce the highest quality research.

Manuscripts submitted for review are privileged and confidential. All reviews must be submitted to the editor. The final decision rests with the editor, who considers all reviewer reports and makes the ultimate publication decision.

The Journal of Inclusive Development is committed to double-blind peer review, where neither reviewers nor authors know each other's identities.

Reviewer Guidelines

Core Ethical Responsibilities	Double-anonymity: Reviewers must maintain anonymity throughout the process. If they suspect the author's identity in a double-blind system, they should notify the editor if this raises a conflict concern. Handling Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should alert the editor to ethical issues including plagiarism or substantial similarity to published work, data fabrication or falsification, inadequate citation of relevant prior work, and concerns about human or animal subject protection. Reviewers should not personally investigate suspected misconduct but should confidentially report concerns to the editor. Confidentiality: Reviewers must not share, discuss, or show the manuscript to others without authorization from the editor. They must not use unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript for personal advantage or in their own research without the author's consent. If a reviewer needs to consult a colleague for specialized advice, they must disclose this to the editor and note the colleague's identity. Objectivity and Fairness: Reviews must be impartial and based solely on the scholarly merit of the work. Reviewers should avoid personal criticism of the author, express views clearly with supporting arguments and evidence, and judge the manuscript objectively while respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest promptly. A conflict may arise from personal or professional relationships with the author(s), competitive, collaborative, or financial connections to the research, or working in the same department or institution as an author. If a conflict exists that would bias judgment, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review and advise the editor of the reason. Timeliness and Responsiveness: Reviewers should respond promptly to review invitations and complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe. They should confirm receipt of the review request, inform the editor immediately if unable to meet the deadline, return the manuscript unread if circumstances prevent timely attention, recommend an alternative reviewer if unqualified or unavailable, and complete the review within the typical 2 to 4 week timeline.
The Review Process	Responding to Invitations: When invited to review, reviewers should consider whether they have the expertise to assess the work, whether they have time to provide a thorough review, and whether any relationship with the authors or their institutions could create bias. Editors often use systems like OJS; reviewers should keep their profiles updated with relevant keywords and expertise to ensure appropriate matching. Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers should assess manuscripts systematically across several dimensions. Originality and Significance: Does the manuscript present new knowledge or insights? What is its potential impact? Methodological Rigour: Is the study design appropriate? Are methods clearly described and replicable? Clarity and Structure: Are the research objectives, findings, and conclusions clearly presented? Literature and Citations: Is relevant work properly cited? Are there omissions or excessive self-citations? Ethical Compliance: Does the research follow ethical standards? Are human or animal subjects properly protected?
Writing the Review Report	Structure: Begin by identifying the strengths of the manuscript. Then present major concerns, focusing on 6-8 major points and numbering them in order of importance. Place minor issues in a separate section, continuing the numbering. Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should not only identify problems but also suggest solutions that can help improve the manuscript or support future research. Tone and Language: Reviews should be polite, conversational, and author-friendly. For non-native English authors, reviewers should distinguish between writing quality and the quality of the ideas. Support for Conclusions: Reviewers should cite relevant literature to substantiate claims about prior work and distinguish between essential revisions required to support claims and suggested enhancements.
Recommendations	Based on the evaluation, reviewers typically choose from the following recommendations: Accept: Publish without further revision. Accept with Minor Revisions: Acceptance pending minor changes. Revise and Resubmit: Substantial revisions required; further review needed. Reject: Manuscript is fundamentally flawed or lacks sufficient merit.
Checklist for Reviewer	Before submitting your review, verify: Review is confidential and not shared with unauthorized parties. All conflicts of interest have been disclosed. Review is objective, constructive, and free from personal bias. Strengths are identified, not just weaknesses. Major and minor concerns are clearly distinguished. Essential versus suggested revisions are differentiated. All claims are supported by evidence. Recommendation is clear and justified. Review is submitted on time.