Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Process is the most important activity in scientific and scholarly publishing. In absence of a significant process of review, the quality cannot be established. Journal of Socio-Economic Review, since its inception, always committed to the quality publishing and healthy review management system. Journal of Socio-Economic Review believes in double blind review process as it maintains the integrity of the paper, author and reviewer. Following are some basic principles that Journal of Socio-Economic Review (JSER) suggests peer reviewers to adhere to.

On receiving a request

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper
  • assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during
  • or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or
  • organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether
  • something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or
  • political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from
  • making libellous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share
  • of reviewing and in a timely manner
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of
  • their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious Misconduct

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. If you do decline the invitation, it would be helpful if you could provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Peer Review

Confidential material
If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

How to log in and access your review

  • Your review will be managed via an JSER submission system through a login Id and Password.
  • Don’t allow anyone to handle review except you only.
  • To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received which will bring you to the reviewing system.

Paper and journal specific guidelines

  • When you start the review, make sure that you are familiar with journal-specific guidelines. All such guidelines are available on the Journal Website.
  • You have to submit your review on the journal website through the id and password provided.
  • You have to carefully read the paper first.
  • You might consider spot checking major issues by choosing which section to read first.
  • If you need you can download it and read thoroughly.
  • Afterwards, you fill all the sections. 

Layout of The Paper

Journal of Socio-Economic Reveiw always choose to publish research papers than simple articles or Essays. Following are some areas that must present in the research paper:

  • Significance of the study
  • Methodology of the study
  • Objectives of the study
  • Hypotheses of the study
  • Sampling Techniques
  • Primary or Secondary Research
  • Statistical Techniques used
  • Analysis
  • Consolidated Data tables in case of a primary survey


The following cases are considered major flaws and should be reported:

  • Unsound methodology
  • Discredited method
  • Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research
  • A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript

Research data and presentation

  • Once you are satisfied that the layout and methodology are sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images.
  • Check the presentation of data and result through tables and figures.
  • Tables and figures must be numbered, headed by captions and with source inputs.
  • Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.

Ethical considerations

  • Researches of other authors should be properly cited and mentioned.
  • Surveys of other authors should properly be documented.

Research Misconduct

If you found any case of research misconduct, inform it to the editors immediately.


Self-Plagiarism or text-recycling is taken as a serious issue by Journal of Socio-Economic Reveiw. It defies the journal’s commitment of the quality publishing. Broad guidelines for text-recycling are explained in the author guidelines page. 

Your recommendation

If any major flaws are spotted, make notes about the manuscript. And proceed for your own perspective of the review. Again, we remind you to be ensured that you’re familiarize with journal-specific guidelines (available on the website). Following may be your recommendations:

  1. Accept: the paper will be published in its original form.
  2. Accept with revisions: the paper will be published and the author are asked to makes minor corrections and modifications mentioned.
  3. Conditional acceptance: the paper will be published provided the authors make the major changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors.
  4. Revise and resubmit: the paper will be considered again in another round of decision making after the authors revise its paper thoroughly.
  5. Outright rejection: the paper will not be published even if the authors make major revisions.

The final decision

The editors ultimately decide whether to accept or reject the paper. The editors will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. Editors may also ask the author to submit other relevant evidences if require in relation to the submitted manuscript.

Commitment to the Reviewers

Once you have delivered your review, you might want a certificate and appraisal for your work with Journal of Socio-Economic Reveiw. We never leave any opportunity to support our reviewers.

Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the manuscript.