Guidelines for Reviewers

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly quality, transparency, and research integrity. The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and internationally recognized standards.

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to ensure impartiality and independence.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the quality and credibility of the scholarly record. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally.
  • Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback aimed at improving clarity, rigor, and scholarly contribution.
  • Assess originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Support editorial decision-making by offering clear, reasoned recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject).

Reviews should focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript and must not include personal criticism of the author(s).

2. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.
  • Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal research or advantage.
  • If a reviewer believes another colleague is better qualified to review the manuscript, prior approval from the Editor is required before consultation.
  • Reviewers choosing to remain anonymous must ensure that comments do not inadvertently reveal their identity.

3. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline an invitation if any conflict of interest exists, including competitive, collaborative, financial, institutional, or personal relationships with the author(s) or affiliated institutions.

If a potential conflict could reasonably be perceived, it must be disclosed confidentially to the Editor prior to accepting the review assignment.

4. Ethical Vigilance and Research Integrity

Reviewers are expected to remain alert to potential ethical concerns, including:

  • Plagiarism or redundant publication
  • Data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Ethical concerns related to human or animal research

Any suspected misconduct must be reported confidentially to the Editor and not communicated directly to the author(s). 

5. Structure of the Review

5.1 Comments to the Editor

This section should include:

  • Recommendation regarding publication.
  • Disclosure of any conflicts of interest.
  • Concerns about ethical issues or suspected misconduct.
  • Any additional information relevant to the editorial decision.

These comments remain confidential and are not shared with the author(s).

5.2 Comments to the Author(s)

Comments intended for the author(s) should be:

  • Constructive, objective, and professional.
  • Clear and supported by evidence or references where appropriate.
  • Structured with general comments followed by specific, line-referenced observations.

Reviewers should:

  • Identify the manuscript’s major contributions and strengths.
  • Clearly describe significant weaknesses or limitations.
  • Suggest specific improvements rather than general statements.
  • Indicate areas beyond their expertise, if applicable.

Reviewers are not expected to provide copy-editing services; however, major language or clarity concerns may be noted.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership.
  • Originality and scholarly contribution.
  • Clarity and coherence of the title, abstract, keywords, and conclusions.
  • Clear articulation of research objectives.
  • Methodological rigor and reproducibility.
  • Ethical approval and informed consent where applicable.
  • Appropriateness and justification of statistical or analytical methods.
  • Consistency between results, data presentation, and conclusions.
  • Quality, clarity, and necessity of tables and figures.
  • Adequacy and currency of references.
  • Overall organization, clarity, and scholarly merit.

7. Timeliness and Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept review invitations only when able to complete the review within the specified timeframe.
  • Notify the Editor promptly if delays arise.
  • Conduct the review independently and without bias.

Professional, respectful, and collegial language must be maintained throughout the review process.