Peer Review Guidelines

Ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record through responsible and ethical peer review.

Core Principles

Peer review in all its forms plays a vital role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends heavily on trust and requires that all participants behave responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers hold a central and critical position in this process, though they often undertake the role without formal guidance regarding their ethical obligations. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers establish fundamental principles and standards to which all reviewers should adhere, providing essential support for researchers, editors, and academic institutions.

Before Reviewing

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review a manuscript, please consider the following crucial questions:

• Expertise Match: Does the article align precisely with your area of expertise? Only accept if you are confident in delivering a high-quality review.
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy: Reviewers must not utilize generative artificial intelligence tools to draft or formulate reviews, in order to preserve confidentiality and data privacy.
• Conflict of Interest: Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? If so, disclose them promptly to the editor.
• Time Commitment: Do you have adequate time? Reviewing demands careful attention—ensure you can meet the specified deadline before committing.
• Resources: If you require further insight into effective reviewing practices, please consult available academic tutorials on the peer-review process.

Reviewing Agreement & Guidelines

Respond to the invitation as promptly as possible (even if declining), as delays directly impede the editorial workflow. If you must decline, providing recommendations for alternative qualified reviewers is highly appreciated.

Upon acceptance, you must treat all received materials as strictly confidential documents. Sharing manuscript contents or review details with unauthorized third parties without prior editorial permission is strictly prohibited.

Methodology Assessment

If the manuscript reports experimental work, carefully inspect the methodology section. Major flaws that must be flagged include:

• Unsound methodology or flawed experimental design
• Discredited or obsolete scientific methods
• Omission of crucial processes known to influence the researched domain
• Conclusions that contradict the reported statistical or qualitative evidence

For analytical studies, examine the sampling framework. For qualitative research, ensure systematic data analysis is presented with sufficient descriptive elements and direct quotes.

Research Data and Visualizations

Examine figures, tables, and supplementary research data. Critical issues include insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations, or unclear visual representations.

Ethical Considerations

Studies involving human participants or animal subjects must be properly documented with evidence of ethical approval from the author's institution.

Your review comments must be courteous, constructive, and objective, entirely free from ad hominem remarks or personal identifying details.

The Review Process: Step-by-Step