Guide for Reviewers

Before Accepting or Declining an Invitation to Review

Prior to accepting or declining an invitation to review a manuscript for the Regional Studies Journal (RSJ), reviewers are encouraged to carefully consider the following questions:

Q1) Does the manuscript align with your area of expertise?

Only accept the invitation if the subject matter of the manuscript falls within your field of knowledge and you are confident in your ability to provide a thorough, insightful, and high-quality review.

Q2) Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?

If there is any possibility of a conflict of interest—whether professional, financial, personal, or institutional—you must disclose this information to the editor immediately upon receiving the invitation. Transparency is essential to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process.

Q3) Do you have sufficient time to complete the review?

Peer reviewing requires a significant investment of time and effort. Before accepting, ensure that you can commit to completing a comprehensive evaluation and submit your review within the specified deadline. If you anticipate any difficulties meeting the timeframe, it is better to decline the invitation promptly.

How to Conduct a Peer Review for RSJ

The RSJ expects reviewer reports to provide a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the submitted manuscript. A review should extend beyond a few brief remarks and should demonstrate engagement with the content, structure, methodology, and scholarly contribution of the work.

While RSJ does not prescribe a fixed structure for reviewer reports, the following format is recommended to ensure clarity and thoroughness:

  • Abstract
  • Major issue
  • Minor issu

The Regional Studies Journal (RSJ) encourages reviewers to assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewer reports should provide constructive and well-reasoned feedback, particularly where revisions are recommended. If reviewers prefer certain comments not to be shared with the authors, these may be included in the confidential section addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. While expectations may vary across disciplines, reviewers should generally evaluate the following key aspects of the manuscript:

  • Are the research questions valid?
  • Is the sample size sufficient?
  • Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent, and was the research conducted ethically?
  • Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
  • Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
  • Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed to enable reproducibility?
  • Are any statistical tests used appropriate and correctly reported?
  • Are the figures and tables clear, and do they accurately represent the results?
  • Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed, and have those results been compared to the current results?
  • Are there any inappropriate citations, such as references that do not support the claims made or excessive self-citations?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?
  • Are the limitations of the research acknowledged?
  • Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without exaggeration or bias?
  • Is the language clear and understandable?

To ensure that authors receive prompt and efficient feedback, reviewers are requested to submit their reports through the Regional Studies Journal (RSJ) manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. If a reviewer anticipates any difficulty in meeting the deadline, they should notify the RSJ editorial office as soon as possible so that an alternative submission date can be arranged.

Reviewers are encouraged to focus their evaluations on an objective and critical assessment of the scientific and scholarly quality of the manuscript. Particular attention should be given to the soundness of the methodology and to whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the results presented.

In addition, reviewers may offer comments on the originality, significance, and potential impact of the research within its field.

At the conclusion of their report, reviewers are asked to provide a clear recommendation by selecting one of the following actions:

  • Accepted
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Unable to Review 

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under peer review must remain strictly confidential, and reviewers must not share them or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.

Reviewers may, upon request, consult with colleagues within their research group, provided that the confidentiality of the manuscript is fully maintained. Before doing so, reviewers should contact the RSJ or the Editor-in-Chief and include the name(s) of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the Editor’ section of their report.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission if they:

  • Have a financial interest in the subject of the work.
  • Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
  • Feel unable to provide an objective assessment.

Applications to Review

We welcome applications from individuals interested in joining our community of peer reviewers. The RSJ Editorial Board selects reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis, inviting the most suitable experts from within their respective specialties and publication records. To ensure accurate contact information, prospective reviewers are encouraged to register for a user account.