Reviewerguides

Reviewer Guidelines

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scholarly quality of articles published in SOCILIB: Journal of Social and Library Sciences. Reviewers are expected to critically evaluate manuscripts within their area of expertise and provide constructive, objective, and well-reasoned feedback to support authors in improving the quality of their work.

The review process should not only identify weaknesses but also highlight strengths and offer clear suggestions to enhance the clarity, rigor, and academic contribution of manuscripts in the fields of social sciences and library sciences.

Considerations Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should carefully consider the following:

• Expertise Alignment
  Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript falls within their academic competence. If the topic lies outside their expertise, reviewers are encouraged to inform the editor promptly and, where possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

• Time Availability
  SOCILIB expects the review process to be completed within two weeks. If additional time is required or the reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, the editor should be notified as early as possible.

• Potential Conflicts of Interest
  Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest academic, professional, financial, or personal before conducting the review. Transparency is essential to preserve the integrity of the peer review process.

Key Aspects of Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts comprehensively by considering the following aspects.

Title and Abstract

• Does the title accurately reflect the content and focus of the manuscript?

• Does the abstract clearly summarize the study’s objectives, methodology, main findings, significance, and conclusion?

Assessment of Originality and Relevance

Reviewers should assess whether:

• The manuscript demonstrates sufficient originality and does not show excessive similarity to previously published works.

• The study offers new insights, perspectives, data, or interpretations.

• The topic is relevant and meaningful for the readership of SOCILIB.

• The manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of SOCILIB.

Evaluation of the Introduction

The introduction should:

• Provide a clear and logical research background.

• Clearly state the research problem or focus.

• Demonstrate engagement with relevant and up-to-date literature.

• Explain the novelty and significance of the study.

• Clearly state the research objectives or questions.

Methodological Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to examine whether:

• The research design and methods are described clearly and systematically.

• The procedures are sufficiently detailed to allow replication.

• Data sources, participants or objects of study, research instruments, and data analysis techniques are adequately explained.

• The chosen methodology is appropriate to address the research objectives.

Results and Discussion

Reviewers should consider whether:

• Results are presented in a processed and organized form (e.g., tables or figures), not as raw data.

• Findings directly address the research questions or objectives.

• The discussion meaningfully relates findings to relevant theories and previous studies.

• Interpretations are logical, critical, and supported by evidence.

• The manuscript clearly outlines the implications of the findings.

• Limitations of the study are acknowledged.

• Directions for future research are suggested.

Conclusion

The conclusion should:

• Clearly address the research objectives.

• Summarize the main findings and contributions of the study.

• Be written in coherent paragraph form, not as bullet points.

• Avoid introducing new data or arguments.

Reviewer Recommendation

At the end of the review, reviewers are encouraged to provide a clear recommendation to the editor, such as:

• Accept

• Accept with minor revisions

• Revise and resubmit

• Reject

All comments and recommendations should be communicated in a professional, respectful, and constructive manner, with the primary goal of improving the quality of the manuscript.