REVIEWER GUIDE

In line with our commitment to publication integrity and scholarly quality, Indonesian Social Science Review (ISSR) strictly adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All reviewers are expected to comply with the following standards throughout the evaluation process.

1. Professional Responsibility and Methodological Inclusivity

Reviewers must provide accurate personal details and accept review invitations only within their area of expertise. ISSR welcomes all valid social science research methodologies, including qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, conceptual, or theoretical approaches. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on the logical consistency, transparency, and rigor of the chosen approach, rather than personal methodological preferences.

2. Managing Competing Interests

Reviewers must declare all potential personal, financial, intellectual, professional, or political conflicts of interest before accepting a review. You should decline the invitation if you share an institutional affiliation with the authors, or have been a mentor, mentee, collaborator, or joint grant holder within the past 3 years. Do not accept a review merely to view a manuscript, or if it closely resembles work you are currently preparing or submitting elsewhere.

3. Confidentiality and Generative AI Policy

All manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential documents indefinitely. Uploading manuscript files, abstracts, or data into public Generative AI platforms (such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude) to summarize or generate review reports is strictly prohibited to protect author confidentiality and intellectual property. Do not involve third parties in the review process without explicit authorization from the editor.

4. Human Subjects Ethics and Data Protection

As a social science journal, ISSR emphasizes the ethical treatment of research subjects. Reviewers should verify that studies involving human participants (such as interviews, surveys, or field observations) demonstrate clear informed consent, participant anonymity, and proper data protection measures. Any concerns regarding unethical field procedures, data fabrication, or plagiarism must be reported directly to the editor.

5. Objectivity, Language, and Constructive Feedback

Feedback must be objective, respectful, and actionable. Evaluate papers impartially, regardless of author background or institutional origin. Separate language proficiency from academic merit: if a paper is conceptually and methodologically sound but exhibits language flaws, recommend professional copyediting rather than rejection. Citation requests must be grounded strictly in academic necessity and never used to artificially inflate citation counts.

6. Scope Alignment and Timeliness

Respond to review invitations promptly and complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe, typically 14 to 21 days. Assess whether the manuscript aligns with the scope of ISSR early in the process. If a paper is methodologically sound but falls outside the core focus of the journal, inform the editor immediately so the manuscript can be redirected without unnecessary delay.

7. Handling Ethical Concerns

Report any suspected research or publication misconduct, such as duplicate submission, text recycling, or unauthorized use of data, directly and confidentially to the editor. Do not attempt to conduct independent investigations unless explicitly requested by the journal to assist.