For Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

DEEKSHA: Bi-Annual Peer Reviewed Journal is a peer-reviewed research journal that values high-quality, constructive, and timely feedback from expert reviewers. Reviewing for DEEKSHA: Bi-Annual Peer Reviewed Journal is an important academic service that helps maintain the quality, integrity, and relevance of the journal.

Why Review for DEEKSHA?

  1. Contribute to the quality and credibility of research in social work, education, and allied disciplines.
  2. Stay updated with emerging trends and new findings in your field.
  3. Gain experience in rigorous academic evaluation and strengthen your academic profile.
  4. Receive recognition as a member of the DEEKSHA reviewer community. A certificate of contribution may be provided where applicable.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Each reviewer is expected to:

  1. Evaluate manuscripts objectively and ethically, without bias.
  2. Provide clear, constructive, and specific comments that help authors improve their work.
  3. Maintain confidentiality and not disclose any information about the manuscript or the review process.
  4. Complete reviews within the agreed-upon timeframe, typically within two to three weeks.
  5. Decline review invitations if the topic is outside their area of expertise or if they have a conflict of interest.

How to Become a Reviewer

A reviewer should be a qualified professional holding a PhD or an equivalent qualification, with a publication record or research experience in social work, education, psychology, public health, or related areas.

DEEKSHA invites experienced scholars, researchers, and practitioners to join its reviewer panel and contribute to the scholarly excellence of the journal.

Interested individuals may send the following details to the Editorial Office at deekshajournal_msw@staloysius.edu.in:

  1. Full Name
  2. Designation and Affiliation
  3. Broad Area(s) of Expertise
  4. Brief Curriculum Vitae (1–2 pages)
  5. A Short Statement of Interest (2–3 sentences)

Upon verification, the reviewer will be added to the reviewer database and contacted when suitable manuscripts are submitted in their areas of expertise.

Reviewer Guidelines

Review reports should address the clarity of objectives, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope. All reviewers are expected to adhere to the ethical guidelines of the journal and the institution's research ethics policy.

Each reviewer is expected to:

  1. Have the necessary expertise to assess the scientific quality and methodological soundness of the manuscript.
  2. Provide constructive, detailed, and objective review reports.
  3. Remain responsive and complete the review within the agreed timeframe, usually two to three weeks.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethics

A reviewer should not accept a manuscript if there is a conflict of interest that may affect their objectivity. Such conflicts may include:

  1. A close personal or professional relationship with the author(s).
  2. Recent collaboration, including co-authorship within the last two to three years.
  3. A shared institutional affiliation or any other relationship that may bias the reviewer's judgement.
  4. Any other personal, professional, academic, or financial interest that may compromise an impartial review.

If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the Editorial Office promptly so that another reviewer can be invited.

How to Conduct the Review

A reviewer is expected to read the entire manuscript carefully, including the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and references, and consult supplementary files where applicable.

The review should focus on the following areas:

  1. Clarity and Relevance: Is the purpose of the study clear? Is the topic relevant to the journal's scope and to practice or policy in India and similar settings?
  2. Methodology: Is the research design appropriate, whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method? Are the sampling procedures, data collection methods, and analysis clearly described and ethically conducted?
  3. Findings and Interpretation: Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are the limitations and implications adequately and honestly discussed?
  4. Literature and Citations: Are relevant and recent works cited, generally within the last five to seven years where appropriate? Are the references relevant, accurate, and free from excessive self-citation?

Suggested Structure of the Review Report

A reviewer should organise the report under the following headings:

  1. Summary of the Manuscript (1–2 short paragraphs)
  2. Major Strengths and Weaknesses
  3. Specific Comments by Section, such as the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References, and Tables/Figures

Reviewers are requested to download the DEEKSHA Journal Article Review Report and provide appropriate comments, suggestions, and recommendations regarding improvement, acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.

The completed Article Review Report may be sent to deekshajournal_msw@staloysius.edu.in.

Overall Recommendation

The reviewer may provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept as it is: The manuscript meets the required academic and publication standards.
  2. Accept after Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor clarifications, language corrections, formatting changes, or small additions.
  3. Accept after Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to the methodology, analysis, interpretation, or academic argument.
  4. Reject: The manuscript contains serious methodological flaws, lacks originality, does not meet the required academic standards, or does not fit within the scope of the journal.

Language, Tone, and Professionalism

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Use clear, respectful, and academic language and avoid personal or harsh remarks.
  2. Provide constructive and actionable suggestions that help authors revise their manuscripts effectively. For example, reviewers may state, “The authors should clarify how informed consent was obtained,” rather than simply stating, “The methods are unclear.”
  3. Ensure that comments are objective, grounded in the manuscript, and aligned with the journal's scope and ethical standards.

Confidentiality and Data Integrity

Reviewers are expected to:

  1. Treat all manuscripts and any attached files as confidential.
  2. Not share, reuse, or distribute the content of the manuscript or the review without explicit permission from the Editorial Office.
  3. Not contact the authors directly. All communication should take place through the Editorial Office or the journal's online submission and review system.

Recognition of Reviewers

  1. Outstanding reviewers may be acknowledged on the journal's website or in its annual issues.
  2. Regular reviewers may be recognised for their contribution to maintaining the quality and scholarly standards of the journal.
  3. Based on the timeliness, quality, and consistency of their reviews, regular reviewers may be invited to join the DEEKSHA Reviewer Panel or, where appropriate, the Editorial Board.

Contact for Reviewers

For queries related to reviewing, delays, or technical issues, reviewers may contact:

DEEKSHA: Bi-Annual Peer Reviewed Journal
Editorial Office
Email: deekshajournal_msw@staloysius.edu.in
Institution: St. Aloysius (Deemed to be University), Mangaluru