For Reviewers

General Standards
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions. Through the editorial communications with the author, it may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewers are required to observe good reviewing etiquette. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline participation in the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review is treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share the review or information within the paper with anyone or contact the prospective authors directly without permission from the editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript may not be used in a reviewer’s research. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Likewise, reviewers’ confidentiality is observed – the names of reviewers are never disclosed to authors. There is no direct communication between author(s) and reviewer(s) concerning a manuscript; editors fulfil the role of mediators.

Ethical Issues and Standards of Objectivity
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and bring these to the editor’s attention, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.
The “Journal of Comparative Studies” is open to authors from any country, university, research institution or scientific school. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have; reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views with clear supporting arguments and inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the possible authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. In cases when a reviewer suggests including citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase one’s citation count or enhance the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers to determine whether bias is potential.

Guidelines for Reviewers
The “Journal of Comparative Studies” publishes theory-driven, methodologically sophisticated and empirical research papers in English that have undergone a double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are requested to consider the following criteria:

• Does the paper fit the stated scope of the journal?
• Is the paper an original comparative study (not a compilation of formerly known publications)?
• Does the paper contain sufficient new findings?
• Does the paper’s title match its content?
• Are the keywords and the abstract sufficiently informative?
• Is the aim in the abstract and the introduction specified?
• Does the content of the paper justify its length?
• Is the research rigorous as to methodology and conceptualisation?
• Is the paper well-organised?
• Does the paper have conclusions that logically stem from the text?
• Is the bibliography sufficient and up-to-date?
• Is the paper written in good academic English?
• Is the paper formatted according to the requirements in the template?

The paper not exceeding 10,000 words should be an original study in English that is “spell checked” and “grammar checked”. American or British usage is accepted, but not a mixture of these. It should be submitted in the paper template designed for the “Journal of Comparative Studies”.

Review Process
The manuscript and signed author(s) guarantee form are submitted to the editor via e-mail. The editors shall seek to ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Two editors in cooperation with the Editorial Board are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal qualify for double-blind peer review. If the paper fails to meet the basic requirements, it is rejected without being reviewed further. After the initial editorial review, the research article is reviewed by two external anonymous reviewers. If necessary, the editors may seek an opinion from the third referee. The editors shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and follow the best practices in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers.
To evaluate the papers submitted to the “Journal of Comparative Studies”, complete the REVIEW FORM following the general guidelines and return the editors via e-mail (ilze.kacane@du.lv or kpc@du.lv)  within one (1) month.

The reviewers may accept the articles for publication without any corrections, with minor or major revisions, or reject them as failing to meet the requirements for a scientific paper or because it is outside the journal’s scope. If the reviews differ widely, an additional referee provides an independent opinion before making any further decision. If significant corrections are required, the revised article is forwarded by the editor to the reviewers repeatedly. In minor revisions, the editors check the re-submitted article and decide if it follows the reviewers’ recommendations and journal requirements. The content of the journal’s latest issue is annually presented at the Daugavpils University Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences Scientific Council meeting by the editor-in-chief.  Constructive recommendations for improving the overall quality be suggested, or a recommendation for a publication is issued. Daugavpils University Science Council makes the final decision to publish the journal issue based on the Scientific Council of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences recommendation.