Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role and Expectations

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of Rural Governance and Green Development (RGGD). Your evaluation helps ensure that accepted articles meet the journal’s standards in methodology, originality, theoretical contribution, policy relevance, and clarity.

RGGD follows a double-blind peer review process. Please do not attempt to identify the author(s) and refrain from sharing the manuscript with others.

2. What to Evaluate

Reviewers are asked to provide a structured and constructive critique based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance and Scope: Does the manuscript fit within RGGD’s aims? Is it relevant to an interdisciplinary audience?
  • Originality and Contribution: Does it offer novel insights, frameworks, or methods?
  • Methodology: Are research design and analysis clearly presented and appropriate? Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Use of Literature: Is the manuscript well-grounded in current literature and appropriately cited?
  • Structure and Clarity: Is the article logically organized and clearly written? Are tables, figures, and abstract well-prepared?
  • Policy and Practice Relevance: Are there implications for rural governance or sustainability? Are recommendations justified?

3. Review Format

Please include the following in your review:

  • Confidential Comments to Editors (optional): Any ethical concerns, plagiarism suspicions, or conflicts of interest.
  • Comments to Authors: Structured, professional, and constructive feedback. Include strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement.

4. Recommendation Categories

You will be asked to select one of the following decisions:

  • Accept as is
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Please justify your recommendation based on your assessment of the above criteria.

5. Ethical Standards

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., recent collaboration, institutional ties)
  • Maintain confidentiality and do not share the manuscript
  • Ensure your review is free from bias, respectful, and evidence-based

RGGD adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for peer review and publication ethics.

6. Timeline and Confidentiality

  • The standard review period is 3–4 weeks
  • If you are unable to review or need an extension, notify the editorial office promptly
  • Reviews are confidential and must not be discussed or distributed outside the review system