Reviewer Guideline

This guide is intended for reviewers working with the Journal of Design Service and Social Innovation (JDSSI), which uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) infrastructure. Its purpose is to support a technically correct, ethically sound, and constructive peer review process.

Peer review is a core component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected not only to provide a recommendation, but also to deliver feedback that helps improve the scientific quality of the manuscript and supports the editor's decision-making.

The Role of Reviewers

As a peer reviewer for JDSSI, you play a critical role in:

• Maintaining the quality and integrity of published research
• Providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their work
• Assisting editors in making informed publication decisions
• Upholding ethical standards in scholarly publishing
• Advancing knowledge in design service and social innovation

1. Review Invitation

1.1 Receiving the Invitation

Review invitations are sent automatically by email through the OJS system. The email usually includes:

• Manuscript title and abstract
• Review deadline
• Link to access the submission in the OJS system
• Instructions for accepting or declining the review

You may access the journal using the email link, or you may log in directly to the journal system at https://journals.michelangelo-scholar.com/index.php/jdssi/ where assigned submissions will be visible on your dashboard.

1.2 Checklist Before Accepting

Before accepting a review invitation, consider the following:

• Expertise match: Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? If not, inform the editor immediately and consider suggesting an alternative reviewer who would be better qualified.
• Availability: Can you complete the review within the indicated timeframe (typically 2-4 weeks)? If not, notify the editor as early as possible.
• Conflict of interest: Do you have any conflicts (personal, institutional, financial, or academic) with the authors, their institution, or the research? If yes, inform the editor and decline the invitation.
• Workload: Do you have capacity to provide a thorough, high-quality review given your current commitments?

1.3 Conflicts of Interest

You should decline the review if you:

• Have collaborated with any author in the past 3 years
• Are from the same institution as any author
• Have a personal or professional relationship with any author
• Have financial interests related to the research
• Have strong personal views that would prevent objective evaluation
• Are aware of the authors' identity in ways that would compromise the double-blind process
• Have been asked by the authors to review their work

When in doubt about a potential conflict, contact the editor for guidance.

2. Login and Finding Assigned Submissions

After logging in to the JDSSI OJS system:

1. Navigate to your Dashboard
2. Assigned submissions are listed in the Review Queue
3. Click View to open the submission and access details
4. You will see the submission title, abstract, keywords, files, and review schedule

3. Accepting or Declining the Review

On the submission page, you can review the manuscript details before making a decision:

To Accept the Review:

1. Review the submission title, abstract, and keywords
2. Confirm the review deadline and that you can meet it
3. Read and agree to the reviewer policy/terms statement
4. Click Accept Review
5. The system will confirm your acceptance and allow access to files

To Decline the Review:

1. Click Decline Review Request
2. Optionally provide a reason for declining (helps editors understand your decision)
3. If possible, suggest an alternative reviewer with appropriate expertise
4. Submit your decline response

Note: Some journals restrict file downloads until the review is formally accepted. This is to maintain confidentiality and track reviewer commitments.

4. Downloading and Reviewing Files

After accepting the review:

1. Download the manuscript file (typically PDF or DOCX format)
2. Download any supplementary files, if provided
3. Review the author guidelines to understand journal requirements
4. Note the review deadline displayed in the system

Important: Downloaded files must be used strictly for review purposes and must not be:

• Shared with colleagues or students
• Discussed publicly or on social media
• Used for your own research without permission
• Retained after the review is completed (delete local copies)

5. Review Criteria

When evaluating manuscripts for JDSSI, consider the following criteria:

5.1 Originality and Contribution

• Does the work add significant value to the field of design service and social innovation?
• Does it address a clear research gap?
• Are the findings novel or do they provide new insights?
• Is the theoretical or practical contribution clearly articulated?

5.2 Title and Abstract

• Is the title clear, accurate, and concise (maximum 20 words)?
• Does the abstract effectively summarize the study (approximately 300 words)?
• Are the research objectives, methods, key findings, and conclusions evident?
• Are keywords appropriate and reflective of the content (4-6 keywords)?

5.3 Literature Review

• Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
• Does it establish the research context and justify the study?
• Are key theories and previous research appropriately cited?
• Is the research gap clearly identified?
• Are citations properly formatted according to Chicago Manual of Style?

5.4 Methodology

• Are the research methods appropriate for the research questions?
• Is the methodology clearly described and reproducible?
• Are data collection and analysis procedures adequately explained?
• Is the sample size or data scope appropriate?
• Are limitations of the methodology acknowledged?
• For human subjects research: Is ethical approval mentioned and appropriate?

5.5 Results and Discussion

• Are results presented clearly and logically?
• Are findings consistent with the data presented?
• Are tables and figures necessary, clear, and properly labeled?
• Is the discussion well-reasoned and supported by results?
• Are findings interpreted in relation to existing literature?
• Are alternative explanations considered?
• Are practical implications discussed?

5.6 Conclusions

• Do conclusions logically follow from the results?
• Are the main contributions clearly stated?
• Are limitations acknowledged?
• Are directions for future research suggested?
• Is overgeneralization avoided?

5.7 Scope Fit

• Does the manuscript align with JDSSI's aims and scope?
• Is it relevant to design service and social innovation?
• Would it interest the journal's readership?
• Does it contribute to interdisciplinary dialogue in the field?

5.8 Writing and Presentation

• Is the language clear and grammatically correct (American English)?
• Is the manuscript well-organized with logical flow?
• Are technical terms properly defined?
• Are tables and figures of high quality and properly formatted?
• Does the manuscript follow JDSSI's writing rules and style guidelines?

5.9 Ethical Considerations

• Are there any ethical concerns (plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation)?
• Is ethical approval mentioned for human/animal research?
• Are conflicts of interest appropriately declared?
• Are funding sources disclosed?
• Is AI use (if any) properly disclosed?

5.10 References

• Are references comprehensive and appropriate (minimum 20 for research articles)?
• Are they formatted according to Chicago Manual of Style?
• Are DOIs included where available?
• Are all cited works listed in references and vice versa?
• Are references current and relevant?

6. Writing Review Comments

6.1 Comments to the Author

This section is visible to authors. Your comments should be:

• Constructive: Focus on improving the manuscript, not criticizing the authors
• Specific: Provide concrete examples and page/line references
• Actionable: Give clear guidance on how to address concerns
• Balanced: Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses
• Respectful: Maintain a professional and courteous tone
• Objective: Base comments on scientific merit, not personal preferences

Structure Your Comments:

Summary: Begin with a brief overview of the manuscript's main contribution and your overall assessment.

Major Comments: List significant issues that must be addressed, such as:

• Methodological concerns
• Unclear research questions or objectives
• Inadequate literature review
• Unsupported conclusions
• Missing ethical considerations

Minor Comments: List smaller issues that would improve the manuscript:

• Language and clarity improvements
• Formatting issues
• Missing references
• Figure/table improvements
• Organizational suggestions

Example of constructive feedback:

Good: "The methodology section would benefit from more detail about the sampling strategy. Please specify how participants were recruited and include the response rate. This information is necessary for readers to assess the representativeness of your sample."

Avoid: "The methodology is inadequate and unclear."

6.2 Comments to the Editor

This section is visible only to the editor and may include:

• Confidential concerns about ethical issues (suspected plagiarism, data fabrication)
• Policy-related issues (scope fit, priority considerations)
• Explanation of your recommendation
• Suggestions for handling the manuscript
• Notes about review challenges or limitations of your expertise

Do not include: Content that should be in "Comments to Author" section.

7. Uploading Annotated Files (Very Important)

If you make comments, tracked changes, or annotations directly on the manuscript file:

1. Save your annotated file with a clear filename (e.g., "Manuscript_ReviewerComments.docx")
2. Upload the annotated file back to the OJS system using the "Upload File" or "Reviewer Files" section
3. Verify that the file has been successfully uploaded

Critical: If the annotated file is not uploaded to the system, editors and authors will not see your detailed feedback. The upload step is essential for communicating your review.

8. Recommendation

At the end of the review, you will be asked to select a recommendation. JDSSI typically offers the following options:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is publishable in its current form with only minor editorial corrections
• Revisions Required: The manuscript has merit but requires revisions before it can be accepted. The revised version should be re-reviewed.
• Resubmit for Review: Significant revisions are needed. The manuscript may be acceptable after substantial changes, but requires another full review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not fit the journal's scope or standards but might be suitable for another journal
• Decline Submission: The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be corrected through revision or does not meet quality standards
• See Comments: Your recommendation is explained in detail in the comments section

Important: Ensure your recommendation matches your written comments. For example:

• If recommending "Revisions Required," clearly list the required changes in your comments
• If recommending "Decline," explain the fundamental reasons in your comments
• If recommending "Accept," note any minor corrections needed

9. Timeline and Time Management

The review deadline is usually 2-4 weeks from the date of invitation. The deadline is stated in:

• The invitation email
• The submission page in the OJS system
• Reminder emails (if sent)

Meeting Deadlines

Meeting deadlines is important because delays can:

• Extend the author's publication timeline
• Disrupt the editor's workflow and decision-making
• Affect journal issue planning and publication schedules
• Create inequality if one reviewer is late while others are prompt

Reviewers are encouraged to complete the review before the last day whenever possible.

If You Cannot Meet the Deadline

1. Inform the editor as soon as possible (not on the deadline day)
2. Request an extension if appropriate (provide a realistic new deadline)
3. If an extension is not possible, consider declining the review and suggesting an alternative reviewer
4. Do not simply ignore reminders - communicate with the editor

10. Ethics and Confidentiality

10.1 Confidentiality

Manuscript content is strictly confidential. You must not:

• Share the manuscript with anyone (colleagues, students, etc.) without editor approval
• Discuss the manuscript content publicly or on social media
• Present or use the ideas, data, or methods before publication
• Retain copies of the manuscript after completing the review
• Use the manuscript content in your own research without permission

Confidentiality obligations continue even after the review is completed and after publication.

10.2 Conflict of Interest

If you discover a conflict of interest after accepting the review:

1. Stop the review immediately
2. Contact the editor to explain the conflict
3. Follow the editor's guidance (typically decline the review)
4. Do not complete or submit the review

10.3 Ethical Concerns

If you suspect ethical issues, such as:

• Plagiarism (text, ideas, data, or figures)
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Image manipulation or inappropriate alterations
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Missing ethical approval for human/animal research
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Authorship disputes or ghost authorship

Report to the editor immediately in the "Comments to Editor" section. Do NOT:

• Mention ethical concerns in "Comments to Author"
• Contact the authors directly
• Attempt to investigate yourself
• Share your suspicions with others

Let the editor handle the investigation according to COPE guidelines.

10.4 Maintaining Objectivity

Provide fair, unbiased reviews:

• Base your evaluation on scientific merit, not personal relationships
• Do not let disagreement with authors' conclusions lead to rejection if the research is sound
• Recognize that different approaches and perspectives are valid
• Separate methodological concerns from personal preferences
• Do not penalize authors for not citing your own work
• Evaluate the manuscript on its own merits, not by comparing to your own unpublished work

11. Submitting Your Review

Before submitting your review in the OJS system:

1. Review your comments for clarity, tone, and completeness
2. Ensure you have uploaded any annotated files
3. Verify your recommendation matches your comments
4. Check that you have addressed all key evaluation criteria
5. Confirm you are submitting before the deadline

To submit:

1. Click "Submit Review" in the OJS system
2. Review the confirmation screen
3. Submit your review
4. You should receive a confirmation email

After submission: You cannot edit your review. If you need to make changes, contact the editor immediately.

12. After Submitting Your Review

What Happens Next

• The editor will read your review along with other reviewers' comments
• The editor makes a decision based on all reviews
• Authors receive reviewer comments (except "Comments to Editor")
• You may be asked to review a revised version if major revisions were required

Reviewing Revisions

If authors revise and resubmit:

• You may receive an invitation to review the revised version
• Focus on whether your previous concerns were adequately addressed
• Acknowledge improvements made by the authors
• Identify any remaining issues or new concerns
• Be fair - do not introduce entirely new major concerns unless they arise from the revisions

13. Recognition for Reviewers

JDSSI values and recognizes the essential contributions of peer reviewers:

• Annual acknowledgment of reviewers on the journal website (if you consent)
• Reviewer certificates available upon request
• Contribution to the advancement of knowledge in design service and social innovation
• Development of your own critical evaluation and scholarly communication skills

Reviewer Checklist

The following checklist is recommended to be reviewed before submitting your peer review report:

• ☐ Expertise Match: Does the manuscript fall within my area of expertise?
• ☐ Availability: Am I able to complete the review within the specified timeframe?
• ☐ Conflict of Interest: Do I have any personal, institutional, or financial conflict of interest related to the authors or the study?
• ☐ Review Acceptance: Have I formally accepted the review request in the OJS system?
• ☐ File Access: Have I successfully downloaded and reviewed the manuscript and any supplementary files?
• ☐ Scientific Evaluation: Have I evaluated originality, methodology, results, discussion, and relevance to JDSSI's scope?
• ☐ Comments to Authors: Have I provided constructive, clear, and actionable feedback, including both strengths and areas for improvement?
• ☐ Comments to the Editor: Have I added confidential notes to the editor where necessary (e.g., ethical concerns or policy issues)?
• ☐ Annotated File Upload: If I made comments, annotations, or tracked changes on the manuscript file, have I uploaded the annotated file to the system?
• ☐ Recommendation Consistency: Is my selected recommendation (accept, revise, reject, etc.) consistent with my written review comments?
• ☐ Deadline Compliance: Have I submitted the review within the specified deadline? If delayed, did I inform the editor in advance?
• ☐ Confidentiality: Have I maintained confidentiality and avoided sharing or discussing the manuscript with third parties?
• ☐ Objectivity: Have I provided an unbiased evaluation based on scientific merit?
• ☐ Tone: Are my comments respectful, constructive, and professional?

Contact for Reviewers

If you have questions about the review process, technical issues with the OJS system, or need guidance:

Editorial Office:
Email: jdssi@michelangelo-scholar.com
Tel: +86 186 1235 9672

Technical Support:
For OJS system issues, contact the editorial office

---

JDSSI deeply appreciates the time and expertise that reviewers contribute to the peer review process. Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing, and your careful, constructive reviews help advance knowledge in design service and social innovation. Thank you for your service to the academic community.

Related Resources:

• Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
• Plagiarism Policy
• Writing Rules - for understanding submission requirements
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org