Reviewer Guidelines
1. Purpose of Review
Peer review ensures that manuscripts published in JIGC meet high academic, ethical, and scholarly standards. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations to help authors improve the quality of their work.
2. Reviewer Responsibilities
- Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.
- Provide objective and evidence-based evaluations.
- Avoid personal criticism; comments must be professional and respectful.
- Identify ethical concerns such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or duplicate publication.
- Declare any conflict of interest (e.g., collaboration with authors, financial interest).
- Submit the review within the agreed timeframe.
3. Review Focus Areas
Reviewer 1 – Scientific Substance
Focus on evaluating the academic rigor and contribution of the study.
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Article Title | Clarity, accuracy, and relevance to the content. |
| Originality & Novelty | Significance of the study’s contribution and its originality. |
| Background & Literature Review | Theoretical depth, relevance of references, and identification of research gaps. |
| Methodology | Research design appropriateness, data collection, validity, and reliability. |
| Results & Analysis | Accuracy, clarity, and logical presentation of findings. |
| Discussion & Conclusion | Depth of interpretation, connection to theory, and implications for future research. |
Reviewer 2 – Technical & Writing Quality
Focus on the presentation, structure, and ethics of the manuscript.
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Manuscript Structure | Compliance with JIGC’s article format and logical organization. |
| Language & Writing Quality | Clarity, academic tone, and grammatical correctness. |
| References | Use of recent and relevant sources, proper citation style, and formatting consistency. |
| Publication Ethics | Absence of plagiarism and adherence to ethical standards. |
| Visuals (Tables/Figures) | Quality, clarity, and appropriateness of visual elements. |
4. Scoring System
Each aspect is rated on a 1–5 scale:
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 - Very Good | Highly meets standards, almost no revision needed. |
| 4 - Good | Meets standards with minor improvements needed. |
| 3 - Fair | Meets minimum standards, requires moderate improvement. |
| 2 - Poor | Substantial weaknesses, major revision required. |
| 1 - Very Poor | Fails to meet standards, significant revision required. |
5. Review Decision Options
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revisions
- Accept with major revisions
- Reject
6. Review Comments
Comments for Authors: Provide constructive, specific, and polite suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Confidential Comments for the Editor: Mention any ethical concerns, potential conflicts, or sensitive observations that should not be shared with the authors.
7. Ethical Standards
JIGC upholds the ethical principles outlined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Reviewers are expected to:
- Report suspicions of plagiarism or data fabrication.
- Treat unpublished manuscripts as confidential material.
- Avoid using any unpublished information for personal advantage.
8. Review Submission
Reviews must be submitted using the official JIGC Peer Review Form via the journal’s OJS (Open Journal System). Timeliness is crucial — reviewers are kindly requested to complete their evaluation within 2–3 weeks of receiving the manuscript.
9. Acknowledgment
The editorial board highly appreciates the reviewers’ professional contribution and commitment to maintaining the scholarly excellence of JIGC.
