MICHELANGELO  SCHOLAR  PUBLISH   LIMITED
JDSSI
JAUD
JACAC

The manuscript will be handled by one JDSSI editor who will coordinate the review process and serve as the main contact person for the authors and reviewers.


JDSSI follows double anonymous peer review, which means that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers and the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. The peer review results are evaluated by the scholarly and editorial committee, and at least two anonymous peer review reports are required for each submitted manuscript. If there is a significant divergence and disagreement in the review opinions, the journal editor will invite a third peer review expert to review.


The journal's reviewers should have a sense of social responsibility and a passion for serving academia. 


The following standards apply to all Dual-Anonymous Peer Review reviewers:

  • They should not have a conflict of interest with the authors of the manuscript;
  • They should not be from the same institution as the authors of the manuscript;
  • They should not have published a paper with the author in the past three years;
  • They should have a doctorate or the highest degree in the relevant field;
  • They should have relevant experience and have a verified publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus or ORCID);
  • They should be an experienced scholar in the field of the submitted paper;
  • They should have an official and recognized academic background.


Reviewers who are accepted for review should:

  • Have the expertise required to judge the quality of the manuscript;
  • Provide quality review reports and remain actively responsive throughout the peer review;
  • Maintain professional and ethical standards;


Reviewers who accept the invitation to review have 7-10 days to write a review report and can request an extension to submit their review opinion as required.


When preparing a double anonymous manuscript, follow these guidelines:

Remove all personal information about the authors from the manuscript, including but not limited to names, affiliations, and institutions. Remove direct citations to the authors' previous publications in the reference list. It is recommended to display all citations in full so that reviewers and editors can fully evaluate your work.


When submitting, remove the institutional or funding information in the funding/ethics/acknowledgment section of the manuscript, but this information can be added to the non-anonymous source file required when submitting the revision.


The above is not complete, please use the anonymous manuscript format on our journal website to help you complete the submission.




Peer Review Policy 





Peer Review Policy


All manuscripts to the journal are subject to peer review. Papers that are outside the scope of the journal, that do not comply with the guidelines below or are otherwise judged to be unsuitable by the editor will be rejected without peer review. Appropriate papers are sent to at least two independent referees for evaluation. Authors are encouraged to suggest reviewers of international standing. Referees advise on the originality and merit of the paper; the editors decide on publication.

The journal operates double-anonymized peer review, meaning that the authors’ identities are hidden from reviewers, and the reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors. The Editors have oversight of the reviewers’ and the authors’ names.

Journal submission email: journal_dssi@yeah.net. (Chinese mainland) | jdssi.editorialmanager01@gmail.com



Ensuring Academic Rigor and Quality


At JDSSI, we maintain high scholarly standards through a comprehensive peer review process. This systematic approach ensures that all published research meets international scholarly standards while contributing meaningful insights to the fields of design services and social innovation.


  • Rigorous Evaluation

JDSSI employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the scholarly rigor and quality of its publications. All submitted manuscripts are carefully evaluated by multiple experts in the field, assessing the research methodology, theoretical framework, real-world impact, and overall contribution to the field. Each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by our editorial team, followed by a detailed review by at least two qualified peer reviewers.


  • Constructive Feedback

Reviewers provide constructive feedback to authors, helping them improve the clarity, effectiveness, and impact of their research. This process fosters scholarly growth and knowledge dissemination. Our reviewers are guided to provide detailed, actionable recommendations, focusing on both methodological rigor and practical applicability. Authors receive comprehensive feedback reports, including specific suggestions to strengthen their research and enhance their contribution to the field.


  • Quality Assurance

The peer review process serves as a critical quality assurance mechanism, ensuring that only the most innovative and impactful research is published in JDSSI. Our quality standards include methodological rigor, theoretical contribution, practical relevance, and ethical considerations. While ensuring a thorough evaluation, we maintain a strict review timeline, typically completing the initial review within 6-8 weeks of submission.


To maintain transparency and fairness, our peer review process follows international best practices in scholarly publishing. We regularly update our review guidelines and provide comprehensive support to both authors and reviewers. This commitment to excellence helps JDSSI become a trusted platform for advancing knowledge in design services and social innovation.



Peer Review Process


The peer review process is a critical quality control mechanism in academic publishing. It helps ensure that published research meets the standards of the discipline and contributes meaningfully to the field. This process typically involves several stages that can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months to complete.


  • Selection of Reviewers

The editor will select two or more qualified reviewers to evaluate your manuscript. Reviewers are typically experts in the relevant field and have no conflict of interest. The editor may consider suggestions from the authors, but ultimately makes independent decisions on reviewer selection. In specialized fields, finding appropriate reviewers can be challenging and may extend the timeline.


  • Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers will evaluate your manuscript based on its originality, significance, methodology, and clarity. They will provide detailed comments and suggestions for improvement. The review process is typically double-blind, meaning that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. Reviewers assess whether the research question is important, the methods are appropriate, the results are valid, and the conclusions are justified by the data.


  • Editor Decision

Based on the reviewers' comments, the editor will make a decision regarding your manuscript. This may be acceptance, rejection, or revision. The editor will communicate the decision to the authors along with the reviewers' comments. Editors consider not only the scientific merit of the paper but also its fit with the journal's scope and potential interest to readers. Even scientifically sound papers may be rejected if they don't align with the journal's focus.


Throughout the peer review process, communication between authors and the editorial office is vital. Delays can occur at any stage, and patience is often required. Many journals now use online systems that allow authors to track the progress of their manuscript. If a significant amount of time passes without updates, it's appropriate to contact the editor for a status update.


The peer review process, while imperfect, remains the gold standard for validating scientific research. Understanding this process can help authors navigate the publication journey more effectively and prepare appropriate responses to reviewer feedback when it arrives.



Responding to Reviewer Comments


Receiving reviewer feedback is a critical milestone in the publication process. How you respond can significantly impact your paper's chances of acceptance. Follow these five essential steps to create effective responses to reviewer comments:


  • Read Carefully

Review all comments thoroughly without reacting immediately


  • Understand

Interpret the underlying concerns behind each comment


  • Address

Make necessary changes to improve your manuscript


  • Respect

Maintain a professional tone in all responses


  • Document

Track all changes and explain your responses clearly


When you first receive reviewer comments, take time to read them completely before formulating responses. Initial reactions may be emotional, especially to critical feedback, so allow yourself time to process the comments objectively before responding.


Understanding the reviewer's perspective is crucial. Try to identify the core concerns behind each comment, even if they seem misguided. Reviewers may identify genuine issues but suggest solutions that don't align with your research approach. Focus on addressing the underlying problems they've identified.


Address each comment substantively. This may involve revising text, conducting additional analyses, clarifying methodology, or reconsidering your conclusions. Be willing to make significant changes if they strengthen your paper, but also be prepared to defend your work with evidence when appropriate.


Maintain a respectful, professional tone throughout your response document. Avoid defensive language, and acknowledge the value of the reviewer's input. Remember that reviewers volunteer their time and expertise to improve scientific literature.


Finally, create a detailed response document that addresses each comment point by point. Clearly indicate where changes were made in the manuscript and explain your rationale. This organized approach demonstrates your thoroughness and commitment to improving your work.
Following these steps will not only increase your chances of publication but also often results in a stronger, more clearly written paper that better communicates your research contributions.