Reviewer's Guidelines

Reviewer's Guidelines

The Editorial Board of the Narayan Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Social Sciences (NJMRSS) sincerely appreciates your willingness to serve as a peer reviewer. Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality, integrity and credibility of scholarly publishing through objective, timely and expert evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Before accepting a review invitation, please ensure that you:

• Can complete the review within the stipulated timeframe, normally two weeks;
• Have no financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest;
• Can provide an impartial, constructive and evidence-based assessment; and
• Are willing to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

If you are unable to meet these requirements or identify any conflict of interest, kindly decline the invitation promptly so that another qualified reviewer may be appointed.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts solely on their academic merit by assessing their originality, significance, methodology, data analysis, interpretation and conclusions. They should identify ethical concerns, including plagiarism or research misconduct, and provide constructive recommendations that help authors improve their work. Reviewers must submit their reports within the prescribed deadline, refrain from using unpublished information for personal or professional benefit, promptly disclose any conflict of interest arising during the review process and cooperate with the Editorial Office, where necessary, during subsequent rounds of review.

The final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

3. Confidentiality

NJMRSS follows a strict double-blind peer review process in which all manuscripts and reviewer communications are treated as confidential. Reviewers shall not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or discuss any part of a manuscript without prior written permission from the Editor. Manuscripts must not be shared with colleagues or students unless expressly authorized by the Editor and any approved consultation must be disclosed. Unpublished data, ideas, methods, or findings obtained during peer review must not be used for personal research, publication, or professional advantage. Reviewers should securely delete all manuscript files after completing the review and immediately notify the Editor of any breach of confidentiality or ethical concern.

4. Reviewer Identity

NJMRSS maintains the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, impartiality and academic integrity. Reviewers shall not attempt to identify the authors, contact them directly, or disclose their own identity during the review process. They should also ensure that comments, tracked changes, or document metadata do not reveal their identity. If an author's identity becomes known inadvertently or through any external source, the reviewer must promptly inform the Editor. The Editorial Office will maintain the confidentiality of reviewer identities and will not disclose them without prior consent, except where required by law or publication ethics.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

The Narayan Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Social Sciences (NJMRSS) follows a strict double-blind peer review process, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the editorial process. This system promotes fairness, impartiality and objective scholarly evaluation.

The peer review process includes the following stages:

1. Initial Editorial Screening: All submissions are assessed for compliance with the journal's scope, submission guidelines, formatting requirements, publication ethics and plagiarism policy.
2. Reviewer Assignment: Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent experts with relevant subject expertise.
3. Independent Evaluation: Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, significance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, quality of analysis and contribution to knowledge.
4. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection of the manuscript.
5. Revision and Re-review: Where revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated before a final decision is made.

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, makes the final decision on publication after considering the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's publication standards.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality, such as recent collaboration with an author, shared institutional affiliation, personal or professional relationships, competing research, or financial interests related to the manuscript.

If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or, if identified later, promptly notify the Editor and withdraw. Disclosures are treated confidentially and an alternative reviewer may be appointed to ensure fair, impartial and transparent peer review.

7. Preparing the Review Report

A reviewer report should be objective, constructive, evidence-based and sufficiently detailed to assist both the authors and the Editorial Board in evaluating the manuscript.

Reviewers are encouraged to address:

• Summary: Objectives, methodology, findings and contribution
• Originality and Significance: Novelty and scholarly value
• Methodology: Appropriateness of design, data and analysis, and whether conclusions are supported
• Presentation: Clarity, organization, references and quality of tables and figures
• Ethical Considerations: Plagiarism, duplication, misconduct, or ethical approval concerns
• Recommendations: Clear suggestions, distinguishing essential from optional revisions

Reviewers should maintain a professional, respectful tone; personal criticism is inconsistent with ethical peer review.

8. Publication Standards

Reviewers help determine whether a manuscript meets NJMRSS publication standards, evaluating it solely on scholarly merit, without discrimination based on authors' nationality, affiliation, gender, race, religion, or beliefs.

Reviewers should assess:

• Originality and freedom from plagiarism or redundant publication
• Significant scholarly contribution
• Sound methodology, accurate analysis and objective interpretation
• Conclusions supported by evidence
• Clear organization, writing and referencing
• Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity

Reviewers may recommend Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. The final decision rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer reports and editorial policy.

9. Editorial Procedure

NJMRSS follows a transparent, fair and systematic editorial process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly work. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance and relevance to the journal's scope.

The editorial process includes:

1. Initial Submission: Authors submit manuscripts in accordance with the Author Guidelines.
2. Preliminary Screening: The Editorial Office verifies the manuscript's scope, formatting, completeness, publication ethics and similarity report. Non-compliant manuscripts may be returned or rejected before peer review.
3. Editorial Assignment: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to the Editor or Associate Editor.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review: At least two independent reviewers evaluate the manuscript.
5. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewers' reports, the Editor may recommend Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
6. Revision and Final Decision: Where revisions are required, authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision.

10. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision within 30 days if they believe a factual error, procedural irregularity, or reviewer bias affected the outcome. Appeals must be submitted in writing with supporting evidence. The Editor-in-Chief may seek clarification from reviewers or obtain an additional independent review before issuing a final decision, which shall be binding.

11. Confidential Comments

During review, reviewers may share comments intended exclusively for the Editor, containing information unsuitable for direct communication to authors, such as concerns about publication ethics, suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, fabricated data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or research integrity issues, along with observations on the manuscript's suitability or supporting rationale for the recommendation.

Confidential comments must not contradict comments shared with authors; constructive scientific feedback should always go directly to authors via the review report. All confidential comments remain accessible only to the Editor and authorized Editorial Board members.

12. Report Submission

Reviewers should submit reports within the specified deadline, normally within two weeks of accepting the assignment. Reports should be objective, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, sufficiently detailed, free from personal criticism or discriminatory language and submitted via the journal's official manuscript management system.

If more time is needed, reviewers should promptly inform the Editorial Office; reasonable extensions may be granted. If unable to complete the review, reviewers must notify the Editor immediately for alternative arrangements. After submission, reviewers should permanently delete all confidential manuscript files unless otherwise instructed.

13. COPE Compliance

NJMRSS is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity, expecting reviewers to uphold fairness, confidentiality, transparency, objectivity and professional responsibility. Reviewers should:

• Maintain strict confidentiality
• Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit
• Disclose conflicts of interest
• Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage
• Report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant publication
• Provide constructive, unbiased feedback
• Comply with ethical peer-review standards

The Editorial Board follows COPE's ethical principles and best practices. All participants, including authors, reviewers, editors and publishers, must uphold these standards to preserve the integrity and credibility of scholarly communication.

14. Copyright Transfer Agreement

Please submit copyright transfer agreements together with the manuscript to the editorial board of the respective journal via the Editorial Publishing System or via email if the journal is not registered in the Editorial Publishing System.

All submissions must be promptly confirmed by the Editorial board.

A copyright transfer agreement enters into force if a manuscript is accepted for publication. If your manuscript is rejected by the editorial board of a journal, the agreement doesn’t come into force. The decision on acceptance of a manuscript for publication is the exclusive right of the editorial board of the NJMRSS journal.

Download Now