Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers play an important role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scholarly standards of the Journal of South Asian Issues (JSAI). Reviews should be objective, constructive, confidential, and completed within the agreed timeframe.

JSAI follows a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another during the review process.

Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when:

• The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
• They can provide an objective and independent assessment.
• They can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• They have no conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

If a reviewer is unable to undertake the review, lacks appropriate expertise, or identifies a potential conflict of interest, the editor should be informed promptly.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and related materials received for review must be treated as confidential and privileged information.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or its contents with others without prior permission from the editor.
• Use unpublished information, ideas, data, arguments, or materials from the manuscript for personal, professional, or research advantage.
• Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.
• Attempt to identify the authors where their identities are concealed.
• Upload the manuscript, abstract, data, or other confidential material to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other third-party tools where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Reviewer comments and editorial correspondence must also remain confidential.

Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews should be fair, respectful, evidence-based, and focused on the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

• Provide clear and constructive comments.
• Explain significant concerns with sufficient detail.
• Distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.
• Avoid personal remarks, hostile language, or unsupported criticism.
• Evaluate the manuscript on its scholarly merits rather than the identity, affiliation, nationality, gender, institutional background, or other personal characteristics of the authors.

What Reviewers Should Evaluate

Relevance and Research Focus

Consider whether:

• The manuscript is relevant to the aims and scope of JSAI.
• The research question, objective, problem, or central argument is clearly stated.
• The topic has sufficient scholarly relevance.

Originality and Contribution

Consider whether:

• The manuscript makes an identifiable contribution to existing scholarship.
• The argument, analysis, evidence, or findings add meaningful value to the literature.
• Claims of originality are adequately supported.

Literature and Scholarly Context

Consider whether:

• The manuscript engages with relevant and appropriate literature.
• Important scholarship has been considered.
• The literature is used critically rather than merely summarised.
• The manuscript is appropriately situated within existing scholarly debates.

Methodology or Analytical Approach

Where applicable, consider whether:

• The research design or analytical approach is appropriate to the research question.
• The methods are explained clearly enough to understand how the study was conducted.
• Data sources, cases, documents, participants, or other materials are appropriate.
• The analytical procedures are sound and adequately justified.
• Limitations are acknowledged where relevant.

For doctrinal, theoretical, conceptual, historical, qualitative, or other non-empirical work, reviewers should assess whether the analytical framework, sources, reasoning, and interpretation are appropriate and sufficiently rigorous.

Results, Findings, and Evidence

Consider whether:

• The results, findings, or arguments are presented clearly.
• Conclusions are supported by the evidence and analysis.
• Claims are proportionate to the evidence presented.
• Relevant alternative interpretations or limitations have been considered.

Where the manuscript differs from existing scholarship or established interpretations, reviewers should assess whether the authors provide adequate evidence and reasoning to support their position.

Organisation and Clarity

Consider whether:

• The manuscript is logically organised.
• The argument develops coherently.
• Sections and headings are used appropriately.
• The writing is sufficiently clear for scholarly communication.

Reviewers should focus primarily on substantive scholarly issues rather than undertaking extensive copyediting.

Tables, Figures, and Supplementary Material

Where applicable, consider whether:

• Tables, figures, graphs, or illustrations are necessary and relevant.
• They are clear and appropriately presented.
• They accurately reflect the information discussed in the manuscript.
• Any material that appears unnecessary, unclear, or duplicative should be identified.

References

Consider whether:

• References are relevant and appropriate to the manuscript.
• Important sources appear to have been omitted.
• Citations are used fairly and accurately.
• The reference list appears consistent with the citations in the text.

Reviewers should not request citations to their own work unless those references are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

Research Ethics and Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially if they identify possible concerns involving:

• Plagiarism or substantial textual overlap.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data.
• Inappropriate authorship practices.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Ethical concerns involving research participants, personal data, or consent.
• Misleading, unsupported, or potentially unethical use of material.

Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct independently or contact the authors directly. Any concerns should be referred to the editor for appropriate consideration.

Preparing the Review Report

A useful review report should:

• Identify the manuscript’s principal strengths and weaknesses.
• Separate major concerns from minor comments.
• Explain the reasons for requested revisions.
• Provide specific and practical recommendations where possible.
• Indicate whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence or analysis.
• Remain respectful and constructive throughout.

Reviewers are encouraged to focus on issues that materially affect the quality, validity, clarity, or scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewer Recommendation

After completing the assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Revise and Resubmit
• Reject

The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor, who considers the reviewer reports together with the manuscript and any relevant editorial considerations.

Timeliness

Reviews should be completed within the agreed timeframe.

If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editorial office as early as possible. A reviewer who becomes unable to complete the review should notify the editor promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.