Policies

Peer Reviewer Guidelines and Code of Conduct

How reviewers safeguard quality, integrity and fairness at JHSS and JERS.

Official policy. Adopted text confirmed by the journal editor.

Purpose and scope

These guidelines apply to peer reviewers of the Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (JHSS) and the Journal of Emerging Research Scholars (JERS). They complement the practical guidance on For Reviewers and the journal review pages for JHSS and JERS.

Accepting assignments

Accept reviews only within your areas of academic expertise.
Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe; inform the editors promptly if delayed.
For JERS, frame feedback to encourage emerging scholars while remaining rigorous.

Constructive, evidence-based reports

Be objective, unbiased and constructive — criticism supported by academic reasoning, never personal.
Assess relevance to scope, originality, clarity, methodology or framework, analysis, references and presentation.
Identify relevant published work the authors have not cited.
Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication or ethical misconduct.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share, discuss, cite or reuse their content for personal or professional purposes without explicit permission from the editor — see the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy. Never use unpublished manuscript content for your own research.

Conflicts of interest

Declare any personal, professional or institutional relationship with the authors that could affect impartiality — and decline the review where you cannot be impartial.

Responsible use of AI during peer review

Never upload unpublished manuscripts, in whole or in part, to external AI tools or services.
Do not use generative AI to write the review on your behalf; the assessment must be your own scholarly judgement.
If you use any assistive tooling (for example language polishing), disclose it to the editor and ensure no confidential content leaves the review process.

Recommendations versus decisions

Reviewer recommendations advise the editors; they do not decide the outcome. Final accept, revise or reject decisions rest with the editors — see the Peer Review and Editorial Decision Policy.

Appointment terms

For JERS, peer review is a voluntary scholarly service role with no remuneration or financial incentives, recognised as academic service. Applying does not guarantee appointment. Appointment duration, workload and termination processes are not set as official terms and will be stated here only once confirmed by the journal editor.

Policy status

Status: Official policy. Reviewed and authorised for publication by the journal editor. No approval date, registration status, ISSN or accreditation is claimed beyond what is stated here.