Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewing is both a privilege and a responsibility. It gives scholars the opportunity to contribute to the integrity of science by shaping manuscripts before they enter the public domain. These guidelines provide practical steps and ethical expectations, ensuring that each review strengthens the research community while honoring the values of fairness, clarity, and respect.

1. Accepting an Invitation

When invited to review, consider whether the manuscript aligns with your expertise, whether you have time to complete the review within the requested deadline, and whether you have any conflicts of interest. If you cannot accept, decline promptly so another reviewer may be appointed without delay.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts are private documents. Do not share them with colleagues or use them in your own work. Confidentiality extends beyond the text to figures, tables, and data. Treat each submission with the same care you would wish for your own work.

3. Conducting the Review

1. First Reading: Skim the manuscript for scope, clarity, and general contribution.
2. Detailed Evaluation: Examine methodology, data integrity, references, and argumentation. Identify strengths as well as weaknesses.
3. Structure Comments: Provide a balanced review with sections on major issues, minor corrections, and general observations.
4. Be Constructive: Phrase feedback to guide improvement rather than discourage.
5. Support Recommendations: Whether recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection, justify your decision with specific evidence.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

• Remain impartial, judging work on content rather than identity or affiliation.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest—personal, financial, or professional.
• Avoid using unpublished material for personal gain.
• Report suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication) to the editor discreetly.

5. Writing the Report

A good review balances rigor with encouragement. Highlight strengths before addressing weaknesses. Use clear, professional language, avoiding disparagement. Where possible, suggest concrete ways to improve clarity, strengthen methodology, or broaden discussion. Remember that your review contributes to the growth of both the article and its author.

6. Timeliness

Reviews should be completed within the timeframe requested, usually 2–4 weeks. If circumstances change and you cannot meet the deadline, notify the editorial office immediately. Timely reviews respect the effort of authors and the flow of scientific communication.

7. Submitting the Review

Reviews are submitted through the journal’s Online Journal System (OJS). Ensure that all sections are completed: general comments for the author, confidential comments to the editor, and a clear recommendation. Proofread your review before submission to maintain clarity and professionalism.

8. Recognition and Growth

Reviewing contributes to your own development as a scholar. Engaging critically with new research sharpens analytical skills and broadens perspective. Reviewers may receive certificates of acknowledgment and are encouraged to record contributions in ORCID or Publons to ensure visibility of their service.

9. Conclusion

Reviewing is a quiet act of service, but its impact is profound. By applying rigor with kindness, protecting confidentiality, and communicating with clarity, reviewers safeguard the integrity of science. Each thoughtful review is a contribution not only to a single manuscript but to the shared enterprise of discovery.