Reviewer Guideline

Dear Reviewer of Current Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,

Before evaluating the manuscript and providing your feedback to the Editor, we kindly ask you to review our "Writing Guidelines" and "Ethical Principles."

As part of the review process, you are required to submit your feedback using the Reviewer Evaluation Form, which consists of "Evaluation Criteria" and "Decision" sections. Additionally, you are expected to provide comments and suggestions on the manuscript's scientific content, writing style, and formatting. If you prefer, you may upload a file with your direct corrections on the manuscript (preferably using the "Track Changes" mode). If you believe the manuscript should not be published, please explain your reasons.

The information you provide in the Reviewer Evaluation Form will be shared with the author in accordance with our double-blind peer review policy (reviewer details are kept confidential). Any notes intended solely for the Editor can be shared in the "Note to Editor" section, while those for the author can be shared in the "Note to Author" section.

Double-Blind Peer Review and Ethical Principles

All manuscripts submitted to our journal are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are not allowed to directly communicate with the authors during the review. The evaluation results are communicated to the authors by the Editors through the journal management system.

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following ethical principles:

• Expertise: Only accept to review works within your area of expertise.
• Impartiality and Confidentiality: Conduct the review with objectivity and confidentiality.
• Respectful and Scientific Language: Provide suggestions in a respectful, constructive, and scientific manner.
• Conflict of Interest: If you perceive any conflict of interest, notify the Editor immediately.
• Timely Review: Complete the review within the designated time frame.
• File Disposal: After completing the review, ensure that all related files are deleted.

Peer Review Process and Transparency

• Review Invitation: Please confirm your availability to review the manuscript within one week of receiving the invitation.
• Conflict of Interest: If you have any personal or institutional connections with the authors, or if there is any financial conflict of interest, notify the Editor.
• Review Timeline: You are given 30 days to complete the review. If additional time is needed, request an extension or inform the Editor if you cannot complete the review.
• Confidentiality and Impartiality: The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Do not share any information obtained during the review with third parties.

Evaluation Criteria

• Originality and Contribution: Assess the manuscript's unique contribution to the field.
• Scientific Relevance: Evaluate the alignment with current literature and whether up-to-date scientific methods are used.
• Methodology and Data Analysis: Check the appropriateness of methods and the reliability of data analysis.
• Findings and Discussion: Ensure that findings are presented logically and linked to the literature.
• References and Citations: Verify the relevance, accuracy, and recency of the references.
• Language and Clarity: Assess the manuscript for grammatical accuracy and adherence to academic writing standards.

Writing the Report

• Evaluation Form: Reviewers should complete the Reviewer Evaluation Form attached to the email.
• Constructive and Polite Feedback: Provide feedback in a respectful and constructive tone.
• Clarity and Details: Ensure that your feedback is clear and well-reasoned.
• Suggestions: Provide specific suggestions for improving the manuscript.
• Direct Edits: If desired, you may upload a file with your direct corrections on the manuscript.
• Ethical Concerns: If you identify any ethical issues, data integrity concerns, or academic misconduct, notify the Editor immediately.

Reviewer Feedback and Communication

• Decision Process: Based on your review, the Editor will make one of the following decisions:
  • Acceptance: The manuscript will be published with minor or major revisions.
  • Revision: The author will be asked to revise the manuscript based on the reviewer comments, initiating a new evaluation process.
  • Rejection: The manuscript may be rejected.
• Request for Feedback: If you wish to review other reviewer comments or the final version of the manuscript, please contact the Editor.
• Questions: If you have any questions about the review process, feel free to contact the Editor.

Thank you for your cooperation.