Guidelines and Instructions for Reviewers

ERJSSH attaches great importance to maintaining a high standard of its peer-reviewed sections. Manuscripts submitted for publication in ERJSSH must not have been published elsewhere. Papers must present arguments and evidence in a concise and readable form (max. length according to guidelines = 8,000 words). They are written by scholars and specialists from throughout the world and cover all continents. Contributions by authors from developing countries are encouraged.

All manuscripts submitted to ERJSSH are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are requested to assess the value of the manuscript in terms of novelty, scholarship, readability, and relevance to the specific topic. The review process is strictly confidential. It is a double-blind process for ERJSSH: authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

Reviewers are requested to fill in the “ERJSSH Reviewer Checklist” which is sent to them together with the anonymous manuscript. The ERJSSH Reviewer Checklist consists of eight categories of questions that will help reviewer/s in making a comprehensive assessment of the paper. 

Overall Recommendations

Peer reviewers of the Ethiopian Renaissance Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (ERJSSH) may recommend one of the following editorial decisions based on the scholarly merit and readiness of the submitted manuscript:

• Accept without Revisions: This decision is reserved for manuscripts that constitute a significant and original contribution to the relevant field of research and require no substantive revisions.
• Accept with Minor Revisions: This recommendation applies to manuscripts that are deemed publishable and of high scholarly value but require minor revisions prior to final acceptance. Reviewers must clearly specify the required changes to guide both the authors and the editorial team. The revised manuscript will be reviewed internally by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the requested amendments.
• Accept with Major Revisions: Manuscripts falling under this category demonstrate potential for publication but necessitate substantial revisions to meet the journal’s academic standards. Reviewers are expected to provide detailed and constructive feedback outlining the specific areas for improvement. The editorial team will oversee the evaluation of the revised submission.
• Reject with Possibility of Resubmission: This option is applicable when a manuscript shows promise but requires extensive revisions that warrant a fresh round of peer review. Reviewers must clearly articulate the necessary changes to guide the authors in preparing a substantially revised version. If resubmitted, the manuscript will be treated as a new submission and may be reassigned to the original reviewers for reassessment.
• Reject: This decision is appropriate when a manuscript fails to demonstrate sufficient scholarly merit or relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewers must provide a comprehensive rationale for the rejection but should refrain from offering revision suggestions. Authors will receive the reviewers’ comments and justification; however, they will not be invited to resubmit the manuscript.

 Commented version of the manuscript

Reviewers may also want to upload a commented version of the manuscript in PDF or Word format. When doing this, reviewers are requested to carefully mark any in-text comments with a specific colour.

Reviewer Disqualification Criteria

The scholarly integrity and overall quality of ERJSSH are fundamentally dependent on a rigorous and impartial peer review process. Reviewers are therefore expected to recuse themselves from evaluating a manuscript if any of the following conditions apply:

• Inability to Meet the Review Deadline: You are aware that you will not be able to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe.
• Conflict of Interest Due to Prior Involvement: You were directly involved in the research presented in the manuscript.
• Prior Contribution to the Manuscript: You assisted in writing the manuscript or provided informal peer feedback to the authors prior to submission.
• Strong Personal Bias: You hold views on the subject matter that may compromise your ability to provide an objective and balanced assessment.
• Lack of Subject Expertise: You believe the manuscript falls outside your domain of academic or professional competence.
• Identifiable Relationship with the Authors: You are certain of the authors’ identities and recognize that this familiarity may impair your impartiality.

Reviewers are encouraged to notify the editorial team promptly if any of these conditions apply, ensuring that the manuscript is reassigned without delay and the integrity of the review process is maintained.

ERJSSH Manuscript Review Criteria

 All reviewers for the Ethiopian Renaissance Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (ERJSSH) are requested to evaluate submitted manuscripts using the following weighted criteria. These standards aim to uphold the journal’s academic rigor, relevance, and ethical integrity.

Introduction/Background: 15%

• Is the manuscript original, relevant, and appropriate to the journal’s scope?
• Does the title accurately reflect the content and focus of the study?
• Does the abstract succinctly summarize the background, objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions?
• Is the rationale for the study clearly articulated and contextually grounded?
• Are the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses explicitly stated and well-defined?
• Do the stated aims effectively convey the intended scholarly contribution?

 Literature Reviews and Conceptual/Theoretical Framework: 15%

• Are the reviewed sources current, relevant, and appropriately cited?
• Does the literature review effectively support the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study?
• Are gaps, controversies, or unresolved issues in the literature clearly identified?
• Is the conceptual or theoretical framework coherently presented and used to guide the research design, data analysis, and interpretation of findings?

Methodology: 15%

• Is the chosen research design justified with reference to relevant literature?
• Are data collection methods and procedures clearly described and appropriately linked to the study’s objectives?
• Are the data sources (primary and/or secondary) reliable, valid, and ethically obtained?
• Are the constructs and variables clearly defined and operationalized?

Ethical Consideration 5%

• Are ethical protocols adequately described, including informed consent and institutional approvals?
• Have all authors disclosed their individual contributions to the research and publication?
• Are mechanisms in place to prevent ghost authorship (e.g., authorship declarations, contribution checklists)?
• Is there evidence of plagiarism, data fabrication, or manipulation?
• Have all relevant competing interests been transparently declared?

Analysis and Results (15%)

• Are the data analysis methods appropriate and rigorously applied?
• Do the results address the stated research questions or hypotheses?
• Are the findings credible, clearly presented, and statistically sound (e.g., confidence intervals, p-values)?
• Are the data interpretations transparent, the findings coherently linked to data excerpts, and the methodological procedures-such as coding, thematic development, and reflexivity- rigorous and well-articulated?
• Are interpretations logically derived from the data and consistently linked to the discussion and conclusions?

Discussion: 15%

• Are the key findings clearly articulated and contextualized?
• Are comparisons with existing studies made, with explanations for similarities or differences?
• Are the implications of the findings thoughtfully explored?
• Is the interpretation grounded in the data and aligned with the study’s objectives?

Conclusions: 10%

• Are the conclusions logically drawn from the results and discussion?
• Do they reinforce the claims made in the manuscript and reflect the literature reviewed?
• Are the conclusions meaningful and relevant to the broader scholarly discourse?

Language, Presentation, Recommendations and Acknowledgements: 10%

• Is the language clear, precise, and consistent with academic standards?
• Do they offer novel insights or perspectives into existing debates?
• Is the manuscript well-organized, with clearly delineated sections?
• Do the recommendations stem logically from the findings and address the original research problem?
• Are acknowledgements for funding, contributions, and sources clearly stated?