Peer Review Statement

As of the June 2025 edition, the JSR ensures that the submission, revision, acceptance, and publication dates are clearly recorded and published with each article. The acceptance date is recorded as the date when the peer review process is completed, not the date of receipt of the review.

The JSR employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and significance of all published research articles. We are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and fairness.

Editors-in-Chief or Associate Editors carefully examine submitted manuscripts to ensure that they are sent to appropriately selected reviewers. Peer reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the topic of the research paper and their ability to provide constructive critique to improve the manuscript.

Double-Blind Review

Only reviewers who are experts in the field covered by the article are requested to review the article. Peer reviewers for the JSR are not financially rewarded in any way. Manuscripts are anonymized by removing any identifying information about the authors before being sent to reviewers. Reviewers are also anonymized, with authors not having access to their names or affiliations. This double-blind process minimizes potential bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit.

Selection of Reviewers

The JSR maintains an extensive reviewer list on a Google drive form. This database is continually updated by the Editorial Team. Reviewers are only accepted onto the database if the Editorial Team agrees that the particular academic in question would be a suitable reviewer. The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors note when a reviewer is requested to review an article – whether they accept to do a review or not – and when they submit their review. No reviewer is asked to review more than two articles a year. The reviewers on the JSR database are continuously updated and represent scholars from geographical, demographic, institutional, and academic diversity. The JSR also encourages the participation of emerging scholars to work as reviewers in order for them to develop as scholars. The JSR ensures that the reviewers of manuscripts come from different institutions than the authors of the articles to avoid potential conflicts of interest and ensure unbiased evaluations. Should reviewers take too long to review an article, never reply to e-mails, or give reviews that are factually incorrect, discriminating, derogatory, slanderous, or demeaning, they are immediately removed from the active list and noted as reviewers that should not be requested to review again for the JSR.

Peer reviewers may not review a specific article if they are affiliated to the same institution as any of the authors of the article, have co-authored with the author(s), or have been supervisors of the author(s) of the article in question.

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Should the reviews of the two reviewers differ to a large extent, then a third reviewer will be enlisted. Reviewers are provided with clear guidelines and evaluation criteria to ensure consistency and thoroughness in their assessments.

Reviewers are requested to make suggestions on how the paper can be improved. They must always report in writing, with clear recommendations for acceptance of the paper in question, with or without revision or rejection as the case may be. Where relevant the reviewers are requested to identify gaps that could be explored to enhance the interpretability and strength of the findings and/or insights of an article.

Peer reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript for the following:

• Originality of the research question and the findings of the article.
• Use and integration of the most recent and important published work in the field.
• Soundness of methodology.
• Validity of results.
• Clarity and significance of conclusions made in-text.
• Adherence to ethical research principles, if any.
• If there are gaps that could be explored to enhance the interpretability and strength of the findings and/or insights, they should make the author(s) aware of it.
• The overall contribution of the work to the field, including its relevance and potential impact on future research.
• Is the conclusion justified by the results and/or argument presented in the article?
• Clarity of writing, organization, and adherence to the journal’s submission guidelines.

Confidentiality

All reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review. This includes not sharing the content of the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.

Evaluation of Reviews and Feedback to Authors

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on publication (accept, reject, revise, etc.). Authors receive detailed feedback from the reviewers to guide them in revising their manuscripts for potential publication. Reviewer reports are carefully assessed by the Editor-in-Chief to decide whether they constitute the basis for the publication of the article in question, or whether publication should follow if certain improvements are effected and/or further work done and reported on, or whether the paper should be rejected.

Rejections

The process of handling rejected submissions occurs at three different stages:

Desktop Rejection: This is an immediate rejection based on a preliminary review of the article by the Editor-in-Chief on the submission of the article. Articles are usually rejected if they do not fit the journal’s scope, fail to meet basic quality standards, if plagiarism is detected, or if AI tools have been used to generate the content of the article.

Rejection after Review: This occurs after peer reviewing, where the decision to reject is based on feedback from reviewers who have found significant flaws or weaknesses in the research. The authors are given thorough feedback to explain why their articles have been rejected and substantial guidance to help them improve on their work.

Rejection before Publication: After an author has made changes suggested by peer reviewers, their article is put through Turnitin before they are language edited. Should an article receive a Turnitin score of more than 10 the article will be rejected for publication. The Editor-in-Chief may use AI tool to detect AI usage in a manuscript and if AI tools have been used to generate the content of the manuscript the Editor-in-Chief will reject the article. Plagiarism and/or the use of AI to generate content is taken very seriously by the JSR.

The journal tracks and reports rejection rates to the ASRSA and the Editorial Board on an annual basis. This ensures that a quality standard is maintained. The rejection rates are calculated for the desktop rejection, review rejections, and rejections before publication.

The JSR aims to work on an eight-month review turnaround time. All peer reviews are archived and kept on both the online JSR system and/or in a Google drive folder.

The JSR follows a developmental approach in peer review, especially for emerging researchers. The Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor, and Associate Editors provide constructive feedback that supports authors in addressing comments and improving their work. Where preliminary desktop rejections are made due to technical standards and readiness before formal peer review the Editor-in-Chief provides detailed feedback to help authors develop their articles further and invites them to re-submit.

Once the review process is concluded, the Editor-in-Chief informs the reviewers of the overall outcome of the review process and may share the review comments submitted to the author(s).

All peer review reports are considered confidential information and are not shared with people outside the Editorial Team. The actual peer review is also not shared with the author(s). It is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor to collate peer reviews into one report which is shared with authors. The original peer reviews are not shared. Peer reviews are not shared with other journals, publishers, editors, or editorial teams. Peer reviews from other journals or publishers are not accepted by the JSR.