Peer Review Policy

Purpose
Digital & Social Review is committed to publishing high-quality, rigorous, and impactful scholarship. This policy establishes the principles and procedures for the peer review process to ensure fairness, transparency, and scholarly integrity.

Review Model
The journal employs a double-anonymous peer review process. Both the reviewers and the authors are anonymized during the review. Authors should ensure their manuscript submission is prepared in a way that does not reveal their identity.

Editorial Screening
All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor. Manuscripts may be declined without full peer review if they fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet basic scholarly standards, or do not adhere to submission guidelines.

Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and prior reviewing experience. The editorial team strives to avoid conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to decline an invitation if they cannot provide an objective assessment.

Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are asked to:

  • Evaluate the manuscript's originality, significance, and rigor.

  • Assess the clarity of argument, methodology, and validity of conclusions.

  • Provide constructive, specific, and respectful feedback to help authors improve their work.

  • Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Submit their review within the agreed timeframe.

Editorial Decision
The final editorial decision is based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment. Decisions include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Reject
    Authors of manuscripts requiring revision will receive the anonymized reviewer comments and editorial guidance. Revised manuscripts are typically re-evaluated.

Appeals
Authors may submit a formal appeal against a rejection decision only on grounds of a substantive procedural error (e.g., a reviewer's clear misunderstanding of the core argument). Appeals must be made in writing to the Editor-in-Chief and are not a mechanism for re-submitting an unchanged manuscript.

Policy Review
This policy is reviewed regularly to ensure it aligns with best practices in scholarly publishing.