Reviewer Guidelines
To maintain the academic quality and integrity of Veritas Journal of Social, Legal and Humanistic Studies (VJSLHS), published by The Global Publishers, these guidelines are provided to assist reviewers in the peer review process. The journal follows a double-blind peer review system to ensure impartial, fair, and academically rigorous evaluation of all submissions.
We sincerely thank reviewers for contributing their expertise and time to the scholarly community. Your role is essential in ensuring the publication of high-quality research in the fields of social sciences, legal studies, and humanities.
1. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should ensure the following:
- Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must immediately inform the editorial office if any conflict of interest exists, including personal, academic, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or institutions involved.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. They must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal academic or professional advantage.
- Impartiality: Reviews must be conducted objectively, without bias related to nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, ideology, or personal beliefs.
- Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the assigned timeframe (typically 15–21 days). If unable to do so, they should notify the editorial office promptly.
2. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following key criteria:
| Criteria | Evaluation Focus |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does the manuscript provide new insights, arguments, or contributions to the field? |
| Relevance | Is the topic aligned with the aims and scope of the journal? |
| Methodological or Doctrinal Rigor | Are the research methods, legal reasoning, or analytical framework appropriate and clearly presented? |
| Accuracy and Validity | Are arguments, interpretations, and conclusions logically sound and well-supported? |
| Clarity and Presentation | Is the manuscript well-structured, clearly written, and academically coherent? |
| Ethical Integrity | Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, data integrity, or unethical research practices? |
3. Review Process
- Acceptance of Invitation: Reviewers should confirm acceptance or decline of the review request within 3–5 days.
- Confidential Assessment: Manuscripts must be read carefully and evaluated in detail according to the journal's criteria.
- Preparation of Review Report: The review report should be structured into two parts:
- Confidential Comments to the Editor: This section should include any ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism, AI misuse, or conflicts of interest.
- Comments to the Author: Constructive, respectful, and specific feedback aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear justification for their recommendations and suggest improvements where applicable.
4. Recommendation Categories
Reviewers are asked to select one of the following recommendations:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small corrections or clarifications.
- Major Revisions: Significant revisions are required before reconsideration.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to methodological, ethical, or scope-related issues.
5. AI and Confidentiality Policy for Reviewers
In accordance with the journal’s ethical policies, reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts.
- Manuscripts must not be uploaded into public or third-party generative AI tools for review, summarization, or analysis.
- Use of AI tools in the peer review process is only permitted if explicitly authorized by the editorial office and limited to secure, privacy-compliant systems.
- Reviewers must rely on their own academic expertise when preparing their reports.
Any breach of confidentiality or misuse of manuscript content may result in removal from the reviewer database and notification of relevant editorial authorities.
6. Ethical Conduct and Integrity
Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of scholarly ethics, including honesty, fairness, and respect for intellectual property. Any suspected misconduct—including plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication—should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.
