Reviewers’ Guidelines

  1. The IJSDC aims to publish work which is coherent, valid and adds value to the scientific body of knowledge
  2. PReviewers should indicate major compulsory revisions (if any) by suggesting additional work or clarifications and referring to page numbers on the submitted manuscript.
  3. otherwise stated, the manuscripts will be sent to two experts for an informed recommendation on whether the articles should be accepted for publication. Statistical reviewers are also used where necessary
  4. Typically we employ ‘single-blind’ reviews (reviewer remains anonymous to author, but reviewer knows or may not know the identity of the author).
  5. Once the reviews have been received by the editor, a decision is made whether to accept the manuscript, ask for a revised version, or reject it. Ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the Editor-in-chief of that journal
  6. .Reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests

Review procedures and reviewers obligations

  1. All the reviews must be objective
  2. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable
  3. Reviewing articles is confidential, naming of the reviewer in public is unacceptable
  4. In context of reviewing articles, reviewers should not have any conflict of interests
  5. Reviewers should mention relevant published articles that have not been quoted
  6. The publishing editors publishing in their own journals should not abuse their position (the process of assessment must be independent of the author)
  7. Reviewers should assess/evaluate the manuscript within the deadline (30 days)

Reviewers Recommendations

The following will apply when evaluating submitted work for publication


Based on your assessment of the validity of the manuscript, what would you advise be the next step?

  1. Accept without revision
  2. Accept with minor essential revisions (which the authors are trusted to make)
  3. Reject because scientifically or ethically unsound
  4. Reject because out of scope or inadequate to publish

In addition, we ask you gauge the relative merits of this work and its potential newsworthiness (note this is for manuscript which you recommend be published or revised). This allows us to identify outstanding work and issue press releases. Simply state whether you think this work is

  1. An exceptional article
  2. n article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
  3. An article of importance in its field
  4. An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests

The whole review should then be submitted as a single file. Note that this is the version the author will receive

If you wish to make additional, private, comments to the editor, you may do so when uploading the review through the our email

Editors duties

  1. Editors should try to satisfy the needs of authors and readers. They should continually improve the quality of the Journal by providing quality published materials and observe the freedom of expression
  2. Editors are fully responsible and authorized to accept / reject an article according to objective scientific criteria (such as originality, significance, clarity, ethical considerations, conflict of interest etc.)
  3. Editors must accept authors´ right to appeal against their decision
  4. Editors must not have conflicts of interests with the articles they accepted / rejected
  5. Editors must publish deadlines for sending and receiving articles, descriptions of reviewing process and constantly update guidance to the authors about all the details that are expected from them (including the guidance on the criteria of authorship)
  6. Editors should be convinced of the accuracy of their decision when they decide to accept an article
  7. Reviewers should assess/evaluate the manuscript within the deadline (30 days)
  8. The decision on accepting articles may not be changed by editors without serious reasons and new editors should not change previous decisions on accepting articles without serious reasons
  9. Editors promote publishing of the corrections or downloading the articles in case errors or inaccuracies are displayed
  10. In relation to the reviewers and the review process editors are obliged to: provide guidance for the review procedure; require elimination of any signs of conflict of interests from the reviewers; protect the privacy of the reviewers
  11. In relation to the Editorial Board, Editors are obliged to: provide guidelines to new members including everything that is expected of them; inform current members about actual strategies and development of the journal

Publishers Obligations

  1. Publisher should determine the relationship between the publisher, editors and other parties; respect personal freedom and right to protect private data (in relation to authors, reviewers, and other parties); protect i
  2. Publisher, in cooperation with editors, should state the strategies of publishing the journal and try to achieve these especially with regard to: independence of editors; research ethics (including confidentiality of particular data, informed consent of the respondents and other ethical requirements of the research in social sciences); authorship; transparency and integrity (conflicts of interests, research financing, standards on providing information about research); review procedure; appeals and complaints
  3. Publisher, in collaboration with editors, should: communicate on strategies of the journal; periodically revise journal strategies; support the integrity of research results; publish corrections, explanations and notifications on text withdrawal; publish journal content in accordance with stated dates.

All rights reserved © 2019