The Journal of Social Transformation and Community Engagement (JSTCE) applies a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic rigor, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers play a critical role in assisting editors in making publication decisions and in helping authors improve the quality and scholarly contribution of their manuscripts.

JSTCE expects all reviewers to conduct their reviews objectively, constructively, confidentially, and in accordance with accepted standards of publication ethics.

1. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers should have appropriate academic or professional expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide accurate professional information and accept assignments only when they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript fairly.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when:

• the manuscript is outside their area of expertise;
• they have a personal, professional, financial, or academic conflict of interest with the authors;
• they are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe; or
• they believe that their impartiality may be compromised.

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript or review materials with unauthorized individuals;
• discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial process;
• disclose the identity of the authors or other reviewers;
• use unpublished information obtained during the review for personal or professional advantage; or
• retain or distribute manuscript materials after the review process contrary to journal policy.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless explicitly authorized by the editor. These confidentiality requirements are consistent with established peer-review ethics.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

• current or recent collaboration with one or more authors;
• employment at the same institution as an author;
• personal or professional relationships;
• academic rivalry;
• financial interests;
• involvement in a competing research project; or
• any other circumstance that could affect impartial judgment.

When in doubt, reviewers should consult the editor before proceeding with the review.

4. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews must be based solely on the academic quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not allow judgments to be influenced by the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, political views, ethnicity, geographical location, or other personal characteristics.

Comments should be professional, respectful, evidence-based, and constructive. Personal attacks, hostile language, discriminatory comments, or derogatory statements are not acceptable.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

A. Relevance and Scope

• Does the manuscript fit the focus and scope of JSTCE?
• Does it address issues related to community engagement, community empowerment, social innovation, or social transformation?

B. Originality and Contribution

• Does the manuscript provide an original contribution?
• Is the research problem significant?
• Does the study provide meaningful implications for community development or social transformation?

C. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

• Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate?
• Are relevant concepts clearly defined?
• Is the literature sufficiently connected to the research problem?

D. Methodology

• Is the research design appropriate?
• Are the participants, research setting, data sources, and procedures clearly described?
• Are the data collection and analysis procedures sufficiently rigorous?
• Are ethical considerations appropriately addressed?

E. Findings and Analysis

• Are the findings clearly presented?
• Are claims adequately supported by evidence?
• Does the analysis go beyond merely describing community activities?
• Does the study demonstrate meaningful outcomes or changes resulting from community engagement?

F. Discussion

• Are the findings interpreted critically?
• Are they connected to previous research and relevant theories?
• Does the discussion explain the implications of the findings for community engagement and social transformation?

G. Conclusion and Implications

• Does the conclusion correspond to the research objectives and findings?
• Are practical, theoretical, or policy implications clearly presented?
• Does the manuscript explain the sustainability or broader significance of the intervention where relevant?

H. References

• Are the references relevant and sufficiently current?
• Are important scholarly sources appropriately cited?
• Are citations accurately represented?
• Is there evidence of inappropriate or excessive citation practices?

6. Specific Considerations for Community Engagement Research

Because JSTCE focuses specifically on community engagement and social transformation, reviewers should pay particular attention to the relationship between the research intervention and the community outcomes.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript adequately explains:

• the community problem or social challenge being addressed;
• how community members participated in identifying and addressing the problem;
• the role of researchers, institutions, community organizations, or other stakeholders;
• the intervention, program, or innovation implemented;
• evidence of changes in knowledge, skills, behavior, capacity, participation, livelihoods, social relations, or other relevant outcomes;
• mechanisms supporting sustainability;
• the extent to which the community was positioned as an active partner rather than merely a recipient of assistance; and
• broader implications for social transformation.

Manuscripts should ideally demonstrate evidence of meaningful engagement and transformation, rather than providing only a descriptive account of community service activities.

7. Constructive Review Comments

Reviewers should provide comments that help authors improve the manuscript.

A good review should:

• identify both strengths and weaknesses;
• provide specific and actionable recommendations;
• distinguish major concerns from minor corrections;
• explain methodological or conceptual concerns clearly;
• identify missing or inappropriate references where relevant; and
• avoid rewriting the manuscript unnecessarily.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications unless such references are genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

8. Identification of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should notify the editor if they identify possible:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate or simultaneous publication;
• fabrication or falsification of data;
• manipulated or unreliable findings;
• inappropriate authorship;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• unethical research practices;
• serious citation manipulation; or
• other forms of academic misconduct.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact authors regarding suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor for appropriate action.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified by the journal.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial office as soon as possible. If a reviewer is unable to complete the assignment, they should decline the invitation promptly so that the editor can identify an alternative reviewer.

Timely peer review is essential for maintaining an efficient and fair publication process.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should not upload or submit confidential manuscript content to generative AI tools or other external systems when doing so could compromise manuscript confidentiality or intellectual property.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's own scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain responsible for the integrity, confidentiality, and quality of their submitted evaluation.

If a reviewer is uncertain whether an AI-assisted tool can be used safely during the review process, the reviewer should consult the editorial office before using it.

11. Reviewer Recommendation

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide a recommendation to the editor. Possible recommendations include:

1. Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantial revision.
2. Minor Revision – the manuscript requires limited revisions that can generally be addressed without substantial re-evaluation.
3. Major Revision – substantial revisions are required, and the manuscript may need to undergo another round of peer review.
4. Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

12. Reviewer Recognition

JSTCE appreciates the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Where appropriate and with respect for reviewer confidentiality, the journal may provide acknowledgment or recognition of reviewers' contributions.

13. Ethical Standard

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to conduct the review in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and these Reviewer Guidelines.

JSTCE follows internationally recognized principles of responsible peer review, including the ethical principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, integrity, constructive criticism, transparency, academic responsibility, and timely evaluation throughout the peer-review process.