Reviewer Guidelines
SOCIA · PEER REVIEW
Reviewer Guidelines
Thank you for reviewing for SOCIA: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial. Reviewers are the foundation of the journal’s quality. These guidelines explain what we ask of you, how to assess a manuscript, and how to submit your report. They follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
At a glance
- Review model: double-anonymous. You will not know the authors, and they will not know you.
- Reviewers per manuscript: at least two independent experts.
- Time allowed: 21 days from accepting the invitation.
- Where: all reviews are submitted through the SOCIA OJS system.
1. Before you accept
- Expertise: accept only if the manuscript falls within your field or method. If only part of it does, tell the editor which part you can assess.
- Time: accept only if you can submit within 21 days. If you need more time, ask the editor before accepting.
- Competing interests: decline, or tell the editor, if you have worked with the authors in the last three years, share their institution, have a personal or financial interest in the outcome, are working on closely competing research, or believe you know who the authors are. See Reviewer Competing Interests.
- Respond promptly: please accept or decline within 5 days. If you decline, suggesting an alternative reviewer is very helpful.
2. How to review in OJS
- Open the invitation email and log in to SOCIA (or follow the one-click link).
- Accept the request after checking the title and abstract, and confirm that you have no competing interest.
- Download the anonymised manuscript and any supplementary files.
- Write your comments for the authors and, separately, any confidential comments for the editor.
- Choose your recommendation and click Submit Review. You may also upload an annotated file; please remove your name from its properties first.
3. What to assess
| Criterion | Questions to ask |
|---|---|
| Relevance and scope | Does the manuscript fit SOCIA’s aims and scope in the social sciences or social studies education? |
| Originality and contribution | Does it ask a clear question and add something new to theory, evidence, method, or policy debate? Is the research gap convincingly shown? |
| Literature and theory | Is the literature current, relevant, and critically discussed rather than listed? Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate? |
| Method | Is the design suitable for the question? Are the sample, data collection, and analysis described well enough to be evaluated and repeated? For qualitative work, are sampling, coding, and reflexivity explained? |
| Results and analysis | Are findings presented clearly and supported by the data? Are tables and figures accurate and necessary? |
| Discussion and conclusions | Are findings interpreted in light of earlier research? Are claims proportionate to the evidence, and are limitations acknowledged? |
| Ethics | Is ethics approval (or a documented exemption) and informed consent reported where people took part? Are participants protected from identification? See Ethical Oversight. |
| Clarity and presentation | Is the English clear and the structure logical? Do the title, abstract, and keywords reflect the content? Are references accurate and complete? |
4. Writing your report
A useful report helps both the editor decide and the authors improve. We suggest this structure:
- Summary: two or three sentences on what the manuscript argues and finds, showing that you have understood it.
- Overall assessment: its main strengths and its most important weaknesses.
- Major comments: numbered points on issues that must be addressed (argument, method, evidence, ethics).
- Minor comments: numbered points on presentation, clarity, references, and small errors, with page or line numbers.
- Be specific and constructive: say what should change and why.
- Be respectful. Comment on the work, never on the authors.
- Do not try to identify the authors.
- Ask authors to cite your own work only when it is genuinely necessary.
- Put remarks meant only for the editor, including any ethics concerns, in the confidential comments field.
5. Your recommendation
| Recommendation | Use when |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is ready for publication apart from copyediting. |
| Minor revision | Small changes are needed; you do not need to see the manuscript again. |
| Major revision | Substantial changes to argument, method, or analysis are needed; you will usually be asked to review the revision. |
| Resubmit for review | The work has promise but needs reworking so extensive that it should be reviewed again as a new round. |
| Decline | The manuscript has fundamental flaws, falls outside the scope, or does not make a sufficient contribution. |
Your recommendation is advice to the editor. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision after considering all reports. See Editorial Decision.
6. Confidentiality
- Treat the manuscript and your report as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for your own work.
- Do not contact the authors directly.
- If you want a student or colleague to help, ask the editor first and give their name; they are bound by the same rules.
- Delete or destroy your copy of the manuscript after the review is complete.
See Peer Review Confidentiality.
7. Generative AI
- Do not upload the manuscript, its data or figures, or your report to generative AI tools. Doing so breaks confidentiality.
- Do not use AI to evaluate the manuscript or to write your review.
- If you used a tool only to improve the language of your own report, tell the editor in the confidential comments.
See AI in Peer Review.
8. Reporting concerns
If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, citation manipulation, undeclared AI use, or an ethics problem, do not investigate yourself and do not contact the authors. Describe your concern, with any evidence, in the confidential comments to the editor. The editors handle it under the Publication Ethics policy and COPE guidance.
9. Revised manuscripts
When you review a revision, check whether the authors have addressed each of your earlier comments, using their response letter. Comment on any new problems, but avoid raising new major issues that could have been raised in the first round unless they are serious.
10. Recognition
- Reviewers who complete a review are listed in the journal’s Reviewer List, without reference to the articles they reviewed.
- A certificate of reviewing is available on request.
- You may add your verified review activity to your ORCID record or Web of Science Reviewer Recognition profile, without disclosing the manuscript.
Questions: socia@uny.ac.id. Last updated: 7 November 2026.
