Reviewer Gudielines

We appreciate your willingness to review work for the International Journal of Humanities Science Innovations and Management Studies [IJHSIMS]. Your knowledge is crucial to preserving the caliber and integrity of our content. Ensuring the correctness, relevancy, and overall merit of the contributions is contingent upon the review process. To maintain the high levels of quality that we strive for, please read these guidelines carefully and abide by them.
As a reviewer, your primary responsibilities include:

Confidentiality: All materials should be treated with confidentiality. Don't discuss, disseminate, or reveal any portion of the submission to outside parties.

Timeliness: If you are going to be late for the scheduled review, please let the editing team know as soon as possible. We need timely reviews in order to keep to our publication schedule.

Constructive Criticism: Give writers thorough, constructive criticism. Provide detailed feedback on your strengths and areas for development.

Ethical Considerations: Immediately notify the editorial team of any possible conflicts of interest or ethical questions.

Respect for Guidelines: Make sure your evaluation complies with the guidelines and review criteria that have been supplied.

Treat the Manuscript With:

Originality: Evaluate how fresh and distinct the information is.

Relevance and Importance: The research topic addressed in the manuscript is highly relevant and significant within the field.

Discussion Assessment: Assess the depth and coherence of the discussion in interpreting the results and relating them to the research question.

Research Contribution: The manuscript makes a significant and original contribution to the field by describing the specific contribution.

Structure and Organization: The manuscript is logically structured, with clear section divisions and a well-organized flow of ideas.

Methodological Rigor: The research methods used are sound and well-documented, lending credibility to the study.

Results Evaluation: Assess the clarity, organization, and interpretation of the results, including the effective use of tables, figures, and statistics.

Language and Clarity: Quality of writing, including grammar and syntax. Readability and clarity for the intended audience. The manuscript's overall language quality.

Conclusion Conciseness: The conclusion should offer a more concise summary of key findings and their broader relevance.

A Profile for Consideration:

IJHSIMS carefully examines your profile for the role of reviewer in order to bear the roles and responsibilities for academic integrity. It is expected of every reviewer to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, adhering to COPE principles.

Reviewers to stand on the criteria;
No conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
Must have a PhD and an official academic affiliation.
Expertise in judging manuscripts on their own quality and methods of research.
Hadn't ought to collaborate on a publication with the writers during the last three years.
Maintain ethical responsibility and standards of professionalism.
Need to provide quality review reports and shall make suggestions for authors to improve their research rigor.
Any possible conflicts of interest that might affect the impartiality of your review should be disclosed.
Give a concise and well-reasoned recommendation for accepting, revising, or rejecting the paper.
To help the editorial team improve the review process going forward, share your thoughts with them.

For Acceptance and Rejection of Manuscript:

For acceptance mention why the paper got accepted and suggest any improvement is needed for further research scope.

While revising the manuscript ‘Acceptance with Minor Revision” can be given when the research covers most of the criteria just mentioning the minor faults. If the specific thing keeps the manuscript best suggest for further process.

For rejection of the article mention any serious flaws that distract the research. Fully focus on research, not the author. Even when suggesting rejection, never forget to offer constructive critique. This aids with the improvement of the work of aspiring researchers and clarifies to the editor your opinion that the manuscript ought not to be published.

Reviewers are asked to thoroughly read and analyze the manuscript including tables, graphs, figures, equations, references, etc for a good review proposal. Meet the highest standard of review with careful examination that helps to make the research unique and compact.