Review Guidelines

JSWHDS uses double-blind peer review. Author and reviewer identities are mutually concealed throughout the review cycle. Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on the following criteria: 

o    Relevance and significance: Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution to social welfare, human development, or allied fields? Does it address a question that matters for practice, policy, or scholarship? 
o    Originality: Is the research question, framework, or finding novel? Does the work advance beyond existing literature? 
o    Methodological soundness: Are the methods appropriate, clearly described, and rigorously applied? Is the sample or data source adequate? Are limitations honestly acknowledged?
o     Ethical integrity: Is the research ethically conducted? Are vulnerable populations treated with appropriate care? Is consent clearly described? 
o    Theoretical grounding: Is the work situated within relevant scholarly traditions? Does it engage critically with existing theory? 
o    Practical implications: Does the work offer clear and credible implications for welfare practice, policy development, or program design? 
o    Writing quality & accessibility: Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and accessible to a broad interdisciplinary audience?

Review Decisions

Reviewers recommend one of four decisions: Accept as submitted, Accept with minor revisions, Major revisions required, or Reject. Final editorial decisions are made by the editor-in-chief, informed by but not bound to reviewer recommendations. Authors receive full reviewer feedback regardless of the decision outcome.