For Reviewers

For Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

SVJ relies on expert peer reviewers to maintain the scientific quality and integrity of the journal.

How to Conduct a Review

  • Log in to the journal’s submission system to access your assigned manuscript.

  • If you have forgotten your password, use the “Forgot your password?” link.

  • Please respond promptly to review invitations. If declining, you may suggest alternative qualified reviewers where appropriate.

Before accepting a review assignment, please consider:

  • Expertise: Accept only if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise.

  • Conflicts of Interest: Immediately disclose any potential conflicts to the editor.

  • Availability: Accept the review only if you can complete it within the requested deadline.

  • Familiarity: If you are new to peer review, you may contact the SVJ editorial office for guidance.

Review Criteria

Manuscripts should be evaluated based on:

  • Novelty and Significance: Originality and contribution to social sciences, economics, management, business, technology, public policy, innovation and related interdisciplinary fields.

  • Literature Review: Adequacy, relevance, and scholarly framing.

  • Research Design and Methods: Appropriateness, rigor, and technical soundness.

  • Results and Interpretation: Clarity, validity, and alignment with conclusions.

  • Presentation and Style: Logical organization, clarity of language, and compliance with journal formatting requirements.

High-priority manuscripts typically:

  • Address significant societal, economic, or policy-related challenges.

  • Provide strong theoretical or empirical contributions.

  • Demonstrate methodological rigor (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods).

  • Offer clear academic, policy, or societal relevance.

Comments to Authors

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive, section-by-section feedback where appropriate.

  • Suggest improvements to tables, figures, and clarity of presentation.

  • Identify strengths as well as areas needing improvement.

  • Use respectful and professional language. Personal criticism is not acceptable.

  • Avoid self-promotion or unnecessary citation requests.

Confidential Comments to Editors

Reviewers may optionally provide confidential remarks to the editors, including:

  • Ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplicate submission, data integrity issues).

  • Concerns about ethical approval for human or animal research.

  • Suspected citation manipulation.

  • Recommendations regarding the need for additional review.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers should select one of the following recommendations:

  • Reject: Manuscript is unsuitable for SVJ.

  • Major Revisions Required: Substantial changes are needed before reconsideration.

  • Minor Revisions Required: Manuscript is publishable after minor corrections.

  • Accept: Manuscript is ready for publication.

Note: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision and may seek additional reviews if necessary.

Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers must:

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.

  • Not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript without editorial permission.

  • Not use unpublished material for personal advantage.

  • Report suspected research misconduct.

  • Avoid requesting citations to their own work unless scientifically justified.

Recognition for Reviewers

SVJ values the essential contributions of its reviewers. The journal provides:

  • Annual public acknowledgement of reviewers.

  • Reviewer certificates upon request.

  • Opportunity to record reviews on Publons (where applicable).

  • Option to link reviews to ORCID.

After Your Review

  • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review comments even after a decision is made.

  • You will be notified of the editorial decision once the review process is complete.