1. Role of the Reviewer

• Reviewers assist the journal editor by providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.
  
  
• Reviewers should identify strengths and weaknesses, assess originality and relevance, and suggest improvements.
  
  
• All reviews should uphold the journal’s standards for scholarly rigour and ethics.
  
  

2. Invitation and Acceptance

• When you receive a review invitation, please respond promptly (accept or decline).
  
  
• Only accept if you have the appropriate expertise and time to complete the review by the due date.
  
  
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting.
  
  

3. Confidentiality & Ethics

• All materials submitted for review are confidential. Do not share or use data, ideas, or text before publication.
  
  
• Avoid conflicts of interest (financial, personal, academic).
  
  
• Notify the editor if you suspect plagiarism, duplicate submission, or other ethical issues.
  
  

4. Conflict of Interest

• You must declare any real or perceived conflict of interest, including relationships with authors or funding bodies.
  
  
• If the conflict is significant, please decline the review and suggest alternate reviewers.
  
  

5. Timeliness

• Reviews should be completed by the agreed deadline.
  
  
• If you are unable to meet the deadline, notify the editor as soon as possible to arrange an extension or reassign.
  
  

6. Review Report Structure

Your report should include:

1. Summary
   
   
   • Briefly recap the aim and key contributions of the manuscript.
     
     
   • State your overall impression.
     
     
2. Detailed Assessment
   
   
   • Originality & Significance – Does the work provide new insights? Is it relevant to the field?
     
     
   • Methodology & Data – Are the methods appropriate and clearly described? Is the data analysis sound?
     
     
   • Clarity & Organization – Is the manuscript well-written, logically structured, and clear?
     
     
   • Literature & Context – Does it situate the work properly within existing scholarship?
     
     
   • Figures & Tables – Are they clear, necessary, and correctly labeled?
     
     
3. Major Strengths
   
   
   • What works well? What are the strong contributions?
     
     
4. Major Weaknesses / Limitations
   
   
   • Point out serious issues (e.g. flawed methodology, missing controls, unsupported conclusions).
     
     
   • Suggest concrete ways to address them (rewriting, additional experiments/analysis, clarifications).
     
     
5. Minor Issues & Style Suggestions
   
   
   • Typos, grammatical errors, formatting inconsistencies.
     
     
   • Recommendations for clarity, readability, or presentation.
     
     
6. Recommendation
   
   
   • Provide one of the following:
     
     
     • Accept as is
       
       
     • Minor revision
       
       
     • Major revision
       
       
     • Reject
       
       
   • Justify your recommendation with reference to your comments.
     
     

7. Ethical Expectations

• Be fair, unbiased, and respectful in tone.
  
  
• Do not allow personal or ideological judgments unrelated to scholarly quality.
  
  
• Keep in mind issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion where applicable.
  
  

8. Confidential Reviewer Behavior

• After submission of your review, do not contact the author directly.
  
  
• Any communication must go through the journal editor.
  
  
• Do not repurpose the reviewed material for your own work before publication.
  
  

9. Post-Review Follow-up

• The editor may provide you with the authors’ responses and request a second round review.
  
  
• In that case, evaluate how adequately the authors have addressed your comments and whether changes improve the manuscript.
  
  

10. Reviewer Recognition

• Reviewers may be acknowledged in the journal (opt-in).
  
  
• We appreciate your contribution to maintaining the journal’s quality and integrity.