Reviewer Guidelines

“WSHIU Scientific Notebooks: Theory and Practice of Social Security” applies a double anonymised peer review model, in line with widely used peer review taxonomies:

• Reviewers’ identities are not visible to authors
• Authors’ identities are not visible to reviewers
• Identities are visible only to the handling editor who makes the editorial decision
• Reviewers communicate with the editor through the journal system
• Detailed information about the review process and editorial deliberations is not published

This approach supports objectivity, provided that confidentiality is maintained and conflicts of interest are avoided.

Reviewer selection criteria

Responding to an invitation and deadlines

If you receive an invitation to review, please respond within three working days. If no response is received, the invitation may be withdrawn and another reviewer may be appointed.

By accepting an invitation, you confirm that you

• meet the independence and conflict of interest requirements
• can complete the review within the editorial deadline, usually up to 14 days

If you anticipate difficulties meeting the deadline, please notify the Editorial Office as early as possible.

Where to begin

Reviewers are encouraged to consult the following resources before accepting or completing a review:

• Committee on Publication Ethics guidance on what to consider when invited to review
• Committee on Publication Ethics ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
• Web of Science Academy resources on research integrity and effective peer review

! Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective and constructive feedback within the agreed timeframe
• assess the manuscript on its scholarly merit, methodology, logic, originality, and relevance to the journal scope
• avoid personal bias and maintain a respectful, professional tone
• declare any potential conflict of interest immediately, or decline the review when needed
• follow the journal’s ethical standards and report any concerns, including suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or unreliable data
• maintain strict confidentiality and not share or discuss the manuscript without permission from the editor
• not use unpublished materials for personal, academic, or professional advantage
• remain available for clarification questions from the editor when needed

Additional information on confidentiality and tools based on artificial intelligence

Reviewers are responsible for the content of their reports. The use of tools based on artificial intelligence is not permitted for preparing reviewer feedback. Reviewers must not upload the manuscript, figures, tables, or any part of the submission into external services that could store, reuse, or expose confidential content.

Please note that language editing is not the primary task of peer review. However, if grammar or spelling issues significantly affect clarity or meaning, reviewers should inform both the editor and the authors in their comments.

If the manuscript lacks logical cohesion due to insufficient analysis, reviewers should indicate what additional information, data, or analytical steps would be necessary to address the issue.

The reviewer form in Open Journal Systems, which is also known as OJS, may not support numbered list formatting. For clearer communication, we recommend numbering your comments manually within the text of your report.