Reviewers’ Guideline

Journal of Social Welfare Research and Practice relies on the expertise of reviewers to ensure the quality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of the manuscripts it publishes. Reviewers are expected to conduct objective, constructive, and timely reviews in accordance with ethical standards and best academic practices.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers assist the editorial team in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts through constructive feedback. Reviews should focus on both the strengths and areas for improvement of the manuscript.

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

3. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be conducted objectively and without personal criticism. Comments should be clear, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific suggestions and relevant references where appropriate.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their evaluation of the manuscript. If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review request.

5. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe. If a delay is unavoidable, reviewers should inform the editor promptly.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope
Originality and contribution to social welfare research and practice
Clarity of research objectives and research questions
Appropriateness and rigor of methodology
Ethical considerations and compliance
Quality of data analysis and interpretation
Coherence of discussion and conclusions
Adequacy and relevance of references

7. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should identify potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, and unethical research practices, and report them to the editor. Reviewers must not use privileged information obtained through the review process for personal gain.

8. Recommendation to Editors

Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation based on their evaluation, selecting one of the following options:

Accept
Accept with minor revisions
Accept with major revisions
Reject

9. Anonymity

The journal applies a double-blind review process. Reviewers should ensure that their comments do not reveal their identity and should avoid any language that could compromise anonymity.