Reviewer Guidelines

The peer review process is central to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing in Next Gen Social Sciences (NGSS). As a reviewer, you play a crucial role in ensuring that published work is rigorous, original, and valuable to the academic community.

These guidelines outline the expectations, ethical standards, and review process for NGSS reviewers.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The goal of peer review is to:

  • Assess the quality, validity, and originality of submitted manuscripts.

  • Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.

  • Ensure that only reliable and significant contributions are published.

2. Review Process Overview

  • Double-Blind Review: Identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

  • Assignment: Reviewers are selected based on expertise and invited by the editorial office.

  • Timeline: Reviews should be completed within 14 days of accepting the invitation, unless otherwise agreed.

  • Evaluation Criteria:

    • Relevance to NGSS scope.

    • Originality and significance of the study.

    • Soundness of methodology and data analysis.

    • Clarity of presentation and logical flow.

    • Appropriateness of references.

    • Ethical compliance (especially for human subject research).

3. Structure of Review Report

A good review should include:

  1. Summary – Briefly restate the main contribution of the paper.

  2. Major Comments – Key issues that must be addressed for acceptance.

  3. Minor Comments – Stylistic, formatting, or small content changes.

  4. Recommendation – Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain confidentiality — Do not share or discuss the manuscript outside the review process.

  • Avoid conflicts of interest — Decline review if personal or professional bias exists.

  • Review fairly — Base comments on evidence, not personal preference.

  • Respect intellectual property — Do not use data or ideas from the manuscript without permission.

5. Providing Constructive Feedback

  • Focus on specific suggestions rather than general criticism.

  • Be objective and professional in tone.

  • Highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the work.

  • Avoid derogatory language or personal comments about the author(s).

6. Reviewer Recognition

NGSS acknowledges the contribution of its reviewers through:

  • Annual Reviewer Acknowledgement listing on the website.

  • Certificates of Appreciation upon request.

  • Consideration for Editorial Board invitations for consistently outstanding reviewers.

7. Declining a Review

If you cannot review a manuscript, please notify the editorial office promptly so an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

Contact
For questions about the review process or to update your availability, please contact the editorial office at editorngss@ngenpub.com.