Reviewers’ Guidelines

The IJSDC aims to publish work which is coherent, valid and adds value to the scientific body of knowledge. The review team includes the editorial board and the Editor-in-Chief, and is responsible for evaluating the quality and suitability of submitted manuscripts — assessing their originality, significance and scientific rigor, and providing constructive feedback to authors and editors.

Evaluating manuscripts

• Assess originality and significance — determine whether the research is novel and important to the field.
• Check the scientific soundness of the manuscript: that the methodology is appropriate, the results valid, and the conclusions consistent with the data.
• Assess the clarity, structure and organization of the manuscript, and the quality of its figures and tables.
• Determine whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's focus and audience.
• Verify that the research adheres to ethical guidelines and that data is readily available for verification.

Providing feedback

• Offer constructive criticism — specific, detailed suggestions for improvement that help authors strengthen their work.
• Express opinions clearly and concisely, using supporting arguments and evidence.
• Keep the review process confidential; reviewers' names and comments are not revealed to authors.
• Review comments are given using track changes in the submitted manuscript.

• Reviewers should indicate major compulsory revisions (if any) by suggesting additional work or clarifications, and by referring to page numbers on the submitted manuscript.
• Unless otherwise stated, manuscripts will be sent to two experts for an informed recommendation on whether the article should be accepted for publication. Statistical reviewers are also used where necessary.
• Typically we employ single-blind review: the reviewer remains anonymous to the author, but the reviewer may or may not know the identity of the author.
• 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.
• Reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests.

• All the reviews must be objective.
• Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable.
• Reviewing articles is confidential; naming of the reviewer in public is unacceptable.
• In the context of reviewing articles, reviewers should not have any conflict of interests.
• Reviewers should mention relevant published articles that have not been quoted.
• The publishing editors publishing in their own journals should not abuse their position (the process of assessment must be independent of the author).
• Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations to review, follow the journal's peer review policy and ethical guidelines, and disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality.
• Reviewers should assess/evaluate the manuscript within the deadline (7 days).

Reviewers recommend to the editor whether a manuscript should be accepted, rejected or revised, and give clear explanations for that recommendation — especially where they recommend rejection, so the authors can revise and resubmit. The evaluation matrix below must be filled in for every review.

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

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

In addition, we ask you to gauge the relative merits of this work and its potential newsworthiness (for manuscripts 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:

• An exceptional article
• An article of outstanding merit and interest in its field
• An article of importance in its field
• An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests

Submit the whole review 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 via info@ijsdc.org.

• 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.
• Editors are fully responsible and authorized to accept or reject an article according to objective scientific criteria (such as originality, significance, clarity, ethical considerations, conflict of interest).
• Editors must accept authors’ right to appeal against their decision.
• Editors must not have conflicts of interests with the articles they accept or reject.
• Editors must publish deadlines for sending and receiving articles, descriptions of the reviewing process, and constantly update guidance to the authors.
• Editors should be convinced of the accuracy of their decision when they decide to accept an article.
• The decision on accepting articles may not be changed by editors without serious reasons, and new editors should not change previous decisions without serious reasons.
• Editors promote publishing of corrections in case errors or inaccuracies are displayed.
• In relation to reviewers, editors are obliged to provide guidance for the review procedure, require elimination of any signs of conflict of interests, and protect the privacy of the reviewers.
• In relation to the Editorial Board, editors are obliged to provide guidelines to new members and inform current members about strategies and development of the journal.

• The publisher should determine the relationship between the publisher, editors and other parties, and respect personal freedom and the right to protect private data.
• The publisher, in cooperation with editors, should state the strategies of publishing the journal — independence of editors; research ethics; authorship; transparency and integrity; review procedure; appeals and complaints.
• The publisher, in collaboration with editors, should communicate the strategies of the journal, periodically revise them, support the integrity of research results, publish corrections and notifications on text withdrawal, and publish journal content in accordance with stated dates.

Every review report rates the paper on each of the following, from poor to excellent, and closes with an overall rating and comments. Reviewers fill it in directly in the review queue.

1. Relevance of paper to the journal's scope and aims
2. Problem formulation
3. Adequacy of literature review
4. Research methodology
5. Interpretation of findings
6. Significance of findings
7. Contribution to research
8. Presentation
9. Contribution to practice

Overall rating: 1 = Excellent, 2 = Very good, 3 = Good, 4 = Fair, 5 = Poor.