Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a key role in maintaining quality. The journal will publish specific reviewer instructions addressing the following points:

Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and accompanying materials as confidential documents. They must not share or discuss the submission with anyone outside the editorial process.
Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews should be objective, thorough, and constructive. Reviewers should comment on significance, methodology, presentation, and identify any ethical issues. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Comments should help authors improve their work.
Timeliness: Typically reviewers will be asked to return reports within 4 weeks of acceptance. If a reviewer cannot meet this deadline or declines, they should inform the editorial office promptly so an alternative reviewer can be sought. Timely review is crucial; if delays occur, the editor will send reminders or assign new reviewers.
Conflicts of Interest: Potential reviewers must inform the editor of any conflict (personal, financial, competitive) that could bias their assessment. If conflicted, the reviewer should decline. Reviewers should not handle manuscripts by close colleagues, former students, or collaborators without disclosing this.
Review Format: A standardized review form and scoring rubric will be provided, guiding reviewers to assess novelty, validity, clarity, ethical compliance, and overall recommendation (accept, revise, reject). The review report should include: (1) a summary of the manuscript’s scope, (2) major strengths and weaknesses, (3) specific criticisms with suggested improvements, and (4) a clear recommendation. Reviewers are encouraged to sign their reports (depending on the journal’s policy on anonymity).
Reviewer Training and Recognition: The journal will support reviewers with occasional guidance (e.g. links to COPE and reviewer ethics resources) and acknowledge their contributions annually. In accordance with COPE’s guidelines, reviewers are expected to provide unbiased critiques and maintain confidentiality.

The Reviewer Guidelines page on the website will elaborate these duties and provide a contact for questions. This transparency aligns with COPE’s recommendation that peer review policies be clearly described online.