As a reviewer for the Global Digital & Print Media Review (GDPMR), you play a crucial role in ensuring the quality, relevance, and integrity of the research published in our journal. Below are your key responsibilities

1. Offer an objective and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript.
2. Base your review solely on the content of the manuscript, without allowing personal biases or any external factors (e.g., nationality, gender, institution, etc.) to influence your judgment.

1. Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not share its contents with anyone outside the editorial team, including colleagues or students.
2. Avoid discussing the manuscript outside the formal review process and never use information gained from the review for personal advantage.

1. Immediately notify the editorial office if you have any conflict of interest, whether personal, financial, or professional, that could affect your ability to review the manuscript impartially.
2. If you feel you are unable to provide an objective review, please decline the review request.

1. Assess the manuscript for its relevance, originality, and contribution to the field of social sciences.
2. Provide feedback on the following aspects:
   1. Research design and methodology: Are the methods appropriate and clearly outlined?
   2. Data and analysis: Is the data sufficient, accurate, and well-analyzed?
   3. Interpretation and conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the data?
   4. Clarity and coherence: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured?

1. Report any concerns regarding ethical issues, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or inappropriate research practices.
2. GDPMR follows a plagiarism threshold of 10 percent. Inform the editorial team if you suspect any form of academic dishonesty.

1. Offer constructive and actionable comments aimed at improving the manuscript.
2. Avoid vague or overly critical remarks. Suggestions should be specific and helpful.
3. Ensure that your feedback is respectful and professional in tone, even if significant revisions are required.

1. Submit your review within the agreed deadline (typically 2–4 weeks). If more time is needed, inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
2. Timely reviews are essential to maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the peer review process.

1. Uphold the double-blind review process, ensuring that neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other’s identity.
2. Refrain from including any personal information that could reveal your identity in the review comments.

1. Based on your assessment, make a clear recommendation:
   1. Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication as is or with minor changes.
   2. Revise: The manuscript requires major or minor revisions before it can be accepted.
   3. Reject: The manuscript does not meet GDPMR’s standards or is not suitable for publication.
2. Provide a rationale for your recommendation, supported by clear evidence from the manuscript.

1. Be willing to review revised versions of the manuscript if the authors are asked to make major changes.
2. Ensure that the authors have satisfactorily addressed your comments and made the necessary revisions.

1. Treat the authors with respect, regardless of the manuscript’s quality.
2. Avoid making personal or derogatory comments in your review.