Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Standards

Purpose of Review. The journal relies on expert peer review to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of originality, methodological soundness, theoretical relevance, analytical clarity, and scholarly integrity. Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the academic quality and credibility of the journal.

Before agreeing to review, invited reviewers should consider whether they have the appropriate subject expertise, sufficient time to complete the review within the requested period, and no conflict of interest that may affect their judgment.

• Accept the invitation only if the manuscript falls within your area of competence.
• Decline promptly if you cannot provide a timely review.
• Inform the editor if any conflict of interest exists or may reasonably be perceived to exist.
• If only part of the manuscript lies within your expertise, you may indicate this to the editor when responding.

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, circulate, discuss, or use unpublished material from the manuscript for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.

Review materials should be used only for the purpose of scholarly evaluation within the journal’s editorial process. If consultation with another colleague appears necessary, prior editorial permission should be obtained.

Reviewers should decline the review if they have a conflict of interest that could compromise, or appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Conflicts may include, but are not limited to:

• recent collaboration with the author(s);
• shared institutional affiliation;
• personal or professional relationships;
• direct academic competition;
• financial or ideological interests relevant to the manuscript.

A strong review should be objective, respectful, specific, and evidence-based. Reviewers are encouraged to explain their reasoning clearly and to distinguish between major concerns and minor suggestions.

• Focus on the manuscript rather than the presumed identity or intentions of the author.
• Support criticism with reasons and, where relevant, examples.
• Offer constructive recommendations for improvement where possible.
• Avoid dismissive, hostile, sarcastic, or personal comments.
• Indicate whether concerns are essential for publication or merely advisory.

Reviewers are invited to assess manuscripts with reference to the following core criteria:

Reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports in a clear and consistent way. A helpful review commonly includes:

• a brief summary of the manuscript and its main contribution;
• major comments addressing substantive concerns;
• minor comments addressing clarity, style, or presentation;
• an overall recommendation for the editor;
• any confidential comments intended only for the editorial team, where necessary.

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, fabricated references, unethical treatment of research participants, undisclosed AI-generated content, or any other serious research integrity concern, they should alert the editor in their confidential comments.

Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations involving direct contact with the authors. The editorial office will handle any necessary follow-up.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, reviewer forms, figures, tables, or manuscript-derived content into public or unsecured AI systems if doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or the integrity of the peer review process.

Peer review reports must reflect the reviewer’s own academic judgment. AI tools must not replace critical evaluation, scholarly reasoning, or ethical responsibility.

Timely reviews are essential to a fair editorial process. Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to submit their report within the requested review period.

If unforeseen circumstances prevent completion of the review on time, reviewers should inform the editorial office as early as possible.

Reviewers may usually recommend one of the following outcomes:

• accept without revision;
• accept with minor revisions;
• major revisions required;
• resubmit for further review;
• reject.

Final decisions remain the responsibility of the editor.

The journal values peer review as a form of scholarly service and intellectual stewardship. High-quality reviews strengthen not only editorial decisions but also the broader standards of academic communication.

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers confirm that they will provide an independent, confidential, and ethically responsible assessment of the manuscript.