Reviewer Guideline

Manuscripts submitted to Sanger Journal: Social, Administration and Government Review will undergo a blind review process. The reviewers are tasked to carry out reviews that include analyses and assessments of manuscripts’ acceptability to be published in Sanger Journal. Reviewers should consider the following points prior to conducting their review:

  1. Does the manuscript you are being asked to review match your expertise? If the article does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the Editorial Secretary.
  2. Do you have time to review the manuscript? The review process should be completed within 2 weeks after a manuscript has been sent. If you do not agree with this condition and need more time to review, please contact the Editorial Secretary.
  3. Are there any conflicts of interests with the manuscript? If you have any conflicts of interests with the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary
  4. Are there any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript? If you suspect any indications of plagiarism in the manuscript, please contact the Editorial Secretary immediately.

Review Process:

  1. Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript?
  2. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the manuscript?
  3. Introduction: The introduction should contain the general background and research questions or hypotheses. Literature review should be included in the introduction.
  4. Has the manuscript met the required journal writing guideline?       

Content:

  1. If the issue relating to the reviewed manuscript has previously been published, is the manuscript sufficient to warrant publication?
  2. Does the manuscript contain novelty, profound knowledge, and interesting points to warrant publication?
  3. Does the manuscript contribute to the development of science and knowledge?
  4. Are the main theories or references used in line with the study?   

Method:

  1. Does the author accurately describe how the data was collected?
  2. Does the article answer the questions posed in the study?
  3. Are new methods used? If there are new methods, are they explained in detail?  

Results :

The results should explain the findings of the author. This section should be written clearly in a logical sequence. Reviewers need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted.

Discussion:

This section contains the author's analysis and further discussion of the study conducted, including comparing the research findings with previous research.

Conclusion:

The conclusion should contain recommendations and summary of the research. The summary should have examples of answers corresponding to the research objective or the acquired findings. The summary should not contain repetitions of research results or discussions. The recommendations provided should correlate with the concept of the conducted research or suggestions for improving the study.     

Table and Figures:

The tables and figures presented should correlate with the article’s content and they should have clear sources of reference (such as books, journals, website, or other references)     

References:

Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is written in the reference list using the American Psychological Association (APA) style 7th edition. The references used should be published within the last 10 years, consisting of 80% from journal articles and 20% from books, theses, or other relevant publications.       

Writing Style:

Please write your text in good English that is interesting to read and easy to understand.    

Final Review:

Assessment of the manuscript review should be written in the Review Form sent by the Editorial Secretary.

Reviewers are required to fill in the table marked with asterisks.

At the end of the review, reviewers are required to give one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication
  2. Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the
  3. Reviewers concerns
  4. Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used
  5. Rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised
  6. Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues

Upon completion of the review form, please fill in the reviewer’s identity in the corresponding columns.