Review Guidelines

SYNERIS is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Reviewers play a vital role in upholding the quality and integrity of the journal. This guide provides an overview of reviewer responsibilities, evaluation criteria, and the steps involved in the review process. By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to evaluate the manuscript independently, confidentially, objectively, and constructively within the timeframe specified by the journal.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers have several important responsibilities in the peer review process. They are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope. Reviewers should promptly notify the editor of any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical issues, or other potential breaches of research integrity. They should also identify relevant literature that is essential to the evaluation of the manuscript, but should not request citations primarily to increase their own citation count. The identity of reviewers must remain confidential, and reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Criteria for Publication

SYNERIS evaluates manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality and Significance: The manuscript should present original ideas, findings, interpretations, or analyses that contribute meaningfully to the field. It should advance, refine, challenge, or expand existing knowledge.

Methodological Rigor: The research should employ appropriate and clearly described methods. The study design, data collection, and analysis should be robust and transparent.

Theoretical Contribution: The manuscript should demonstrate a strong theoretical foundation and, where appropriate, contribute to theoretical debates within the social sciences.

Clarity and Coherence: The manuscript should communicate its objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions clearly and logically. The writing should be concise and accessible to an interdisciplinary audience.

Relevance: The manuscript should be relevant to the scope of SYNERIS and should engage with the broader interdisciplinary social science community.

Ethical Integrity: The research should comply with ethical standards, including informed consent, confidentiality, and conflict of interest disclosure.

The Review Process

When you accept a review invitation, you will be granted access to the manuscript and any supplementary materials. You will be asked to evaluate the manuscript and provide a recommendation to the editor. The review process typically involves the following steps:

  1. Accept or Decline the Invitation: Respond to the invitation as soon as possible. If you decline, please provide a brief explanation.

  2. Access the Manuscript: Log in to the SYNERIS system to access the manuscript and any supplementary materials.

  3. Evaluate the Manuscript: Read the manuscript carefully and assess it against the criteria for publication. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of the work and note any major or minor concerns.

  4. Prepare Your Review: Write a clear, constructive, and evidence-based review. Distinguish between major and minor concerns and provide actionable recommendations where possible.

  5. Submit Your Recommendation: Provide your recommendation to the editor, along with your comments to the author and any confidential comments to the editor.

What to Evaluate

When evaluating a manuscript, consider the following questions:

  • Originality and Significance: Does the manuscript present original ideas, findings, or interpretations that are of sufficient significance and interest to an international scholarly audience?

  • Methodology: Are the research methods, study design, analytical procedures, and statistical approaches appropriate for addressing the stated research questions?

  • Evidence: Does the manuscript provide sufficient evidence for its principal claims? Are important sources, data, or alternative explanations missing?

  • Engagement with the Literature: Does the manuscript demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the relevant literature? Are important and recent publications considered?

  • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-written, logically organized, and easy to follow? Are the title and abstract accurate and informative?

  • Interpretation: Are the interpretations balanced, logically reasoned, and consistent with the evidence? Are alternative interpretations considered where relevant?

  • References: Are the references relevant, accurate, and sufficient? Does the manuscript avoid unnecessary or excessive self-citation?

  • Contribution: Does the manuscript identify meaningful implications for future research, theory, methodology, or policy?

Writing Your Review

Your review should be clear, specific, respectful, and constructive. Focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript and provide actionable recommendations for improvement. Avoid personal criticism, dismissive language, or statements unrelated to the manuscript's content. Distinguish between major concerns that affect the manuscript's validity and minor editorial issues. Explain the reasoning behind your recommendations.

Editorial Decision Options

Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations to the editor:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication and requires no substantive changes, or only minor editorial changes.

Minor Revision: The manuscript is fundamentally sound and suitable for publication but requires limited revisions, clarification, or improvement before acceptance.

Major Revision: The manuscript has substantial issues that may be addressable through revision, such as methodological clarification, additional analysis, restructuring, or strengthening of evidence.

Reject: The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision, including major deficiencies in methodology, insufficient evidence, inadequate originality or significance, serious problems of interpretation, or ethical concerns.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments directly to the editor. These comments should address matters such as potential conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, or serious methodological problems that may not be appropriate to communicate directly to the authors. Confidential comments should remain professional and evidence-based.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to SYNERIS are treated as confidential documents during the review process. Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript or its contents to third parties, share the manuscript without permission from the editor, use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage, or contact authors directly about the manuscript. The confidentiality of the review process must be maintained before and after publication.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. A reviewer should decline the invitation if they have a personal or professional relationship with an author that could affect objectivity, have recently collaborated with an author, work at the same institution as an author, have a financial or other interest that could influence their judgment, or believe that they cannot provide an impartial assessment. Editors may replace a reviewer if a conflict of interest becomes apparent during the review process.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeframe specified by the journal. If you anticipate a delay, please contact the editorial team as soon as possible. The timely completion of reviews is essential for maintaining the efficiency of the publication process.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Review

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and should not upload unpublished manuscripts, manuscript text, figures, tables, or other confidential material to generative artificial intelligence systems where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content and recommendations of their reports. Editors and reviewers should not use generative AI to replace their independent scholarly judgment.