Reviewers

Reviewer Policy and Guidelines

Reviewer Information

The Journal of Marginalized Communities and Social Justice (JMCSJ) relies on the expertise, integrity, and scholarly judgment of peer reviewers to maintain the academic quality and ethical standards of the journal. Reviewers play an essential role in supporting fair, rigorous, constructive, and socially responsible scholarly publishing.

Peer Review Process

JMCSJ follows a double-anonymous peer review process. This means that the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to reviewers based on their subject expertise, methodological knowledge, and relevance to the manuscript’s field of study. Each manuscript is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Where reviewer reports differ significantly, the editorial team may seek an additional review or make a decision based on editorial assessment.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned editor, taking into consideration reviewer recommendations, the quality of the manuscript, journal scope, ethical standards, and scholarly contribution.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide fair, objective, evidence-based, and constructive feedback.
Evaluate the originality, relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical integrity, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.
Offer specific comments that can help authors improve the quality of their work.
Complete the review within the agreed timeline.
Inform the editorial team immediately if they are unable to complete the review.
Declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting or continuing the review.
Maintain professionalism, respect, and academic courtesy in all reviewer commen

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, abstracts, review invitations, reviewer forms, editorial communications, and reviewer comments must be treated as strictly confidential.

Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript or review process with any third party without formal permission from the editorial team. Reviewers must not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or institutional advantage.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that may affect their ability to provide an impartial review. Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

Personal, academic, professional, financial, or institutional relationships with the author.
Recent collaboration, supervision, mentorship, or joint publication with the author.
Direct competition or strong disagreement that may affect objectivity.
Any situation where the reviewer feels unable to provide a fair and independent assessment.

If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or inform the editorial team before proceeding.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should assess manuscripts with honesty, fairness, and scholarly responsibility. They should alert the editorial team if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, ethical concerns, inappropriate citation practices, or any other form of research or publication misconduct.

Reviewer comments should focus on the manuscript and not on the author. Discriminatory, hostile, personal, or disrespectful language is not acceptable

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload, share, or process confidential manuscripts through public or third-party artificial intelligence tools unless explicit permission is granted by the editorial team.

If reviewers use any AI-assisted tools for language support or technical assistance, they remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, integrity, and originality of their review comments. AI tools must not replace the reviewer’s own scholarly judgment.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may be asked to recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

Accept
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Revise and Resubmit
Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision rests with the editorial team.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their review within the timeline specified in the invitation email. If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the editorial team as early as possible.

Recognition of Reviewers

JMCSJ values the voluntary scholarly contribution of reviewers. Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged through certificates, formal appreciation letters, or annual reviewer recognition, while maintaining the confidentiality of individual manuscript reviews.

Reviewer Diversity and Inclusion

JMCSJ is committed to developing a diverse and inclusive reviewer community. The journal welcomes reviewers from different disciplines, institutions, regions, career stages, and professional backgrounds, especially those whose expertise contributes to marginalized communities, social justice, interdisciplinary research, and socially relevant knowledge production.