Reviewer Guideline

Reviewers who accept an invitation to evaluate a manuscript are expected to:

  • Inform the editor immediately if they are unable to undertake the review or if they identify a potential conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

  • Treat all information related to the manuscript as confidential and privileged, and do not disclose or use it for personal advantage.

  • Conduct their reviews objectively and fairly, providing constructive feedback that aids editorial decisions and helps authors improve their work.

  • Complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe to support the timely processing of submissions.

Peer reviewers are entrusted with the critical task of providing an objective, constructive, and thorough evaluation of manuscripts submitted for publication. Their assessments are essential to upholding the quality and integrity of scholarly research.

Role of the Reviewer

  • Reviewers are expected to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript, noting both its merits and any scientific or technical shortcomings.

  • They should detect errors or flaws, whether methodological or interpretive, that could affect the validity of the work.

  • Reviewers are also encouraged to provide clear and practical recommendations to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Authors will receive the comments provided by reviewers, but reviewers’ identities will remain confidential throughout the process. It is therefore essential that all feedback be conveyed respectfully and impartially.

What Reviewers Should Evaluate

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should carefully consider the following points:

Research Questions and Relevance

  • What is the main question or objective of the research?

  • Is this question relevant, significant, and intriguing to the field?

Originality and Contribution

  • How original is the topic or the approach taken?

  • What does the work contribute to the existing literature, beyond what has already been published?

Clarity and Quality of Writing

  • Is the manuscript well organised and written?

  • Is the text straightforward and easy to follow?

Conclusions and Evidence

  • Are the conclusions justified by the evidence and arguments presented in the manuscript?

  • Do the conclusions appropriately address the main research question?

Context and Scholarly Debate

  • If the manuscript challenges current academic consensus, does it provide a compelling, well-supported case?

  • If not, what additional evidence or analysis would be necessary to strengthen the argument?

Figures and Tables

  • Do the figures, tables, or illustrations enhance understanding of the content?

  • Are they clearly presented and necessary, or could they be improved or removed?