Reviewer Management

Overview
At JGST, effective reviewer management is fundamental to ensuring a robust, fair, and efficient peer review process. Our approach upholds academic integrity, accelerates scholarly communication, and maintains the highest standards in social transformation research.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

  • Subject-Matter Expertise: Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, publication record, and expertise in social sciences, development studies, sociology, policy, and related disciplines.

  • Diversity Commitment: JGST promotes a diverse reviewer pool across regions, institutions, academic ranks, and gender to ensure inclusivity and balanced perspectives.

  • Formal Invitations: Reviewers receive structured email invitations with abstracts, expected review timelines, and conflict of interest disclosures.

  • Reviewer Database: Maintained via prior contributors, editorial board recommendations, conferences, and professional networks.

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

  • Double-Blind Review: Anonymity is maintained for authors and reviewers to minimize bias.

  • Balanced Workload: Editorial staff monitor assignments to prevent overloading reviewers.

  • Editorial Oversight: Manuscripts are matched to reviewers based on expertise for constructive evaluation.

3. Reviewer Guidelines

  • Evaluation Criteria: Originality, theoretical and practical relevance, methodological rigor, clarity, and ethical compliance.

  • Timeliness: Reviews are expected within 2–4 weeks.

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and materials must not be shared.

  • Ethical Vigilance: Reviewers report plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or ethical violations.

4. Communication & Support

  • Clear editorial communication and guidance.

  • Annual recognition of outstanding reviewers.

  • Flexibility for reasonable extension requests.

5. Quality Assurance

  • Reviews are monitored for depth, constructiveness, and adherence to guidelines.

  • Conflicting reviews may trigger additional review or editorial discussion.

  • Periodic reviewer assessment ensures continued quality.

6. Development & Recognition

  • Annual acknowledgment and digital certificates.

  • Training webinars and online resources.

  • Possible incentives include priority handling of submissions and access to editorial updates.

7. Conflict of Interest & Misconduct

  • Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts; unethical behavior may lead to removal from the database.