Reviewer Guidelines

1. Purpose of the Review
The purpose of peer review is to ensure the quality, integrity, and clarity of scholarly publications. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.

2. Scope of Review
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality: Is the work novel and does it make a meaningful contribution to the field?
  • Relevance: Does the manuscript fit within the aims and scope of the journal?
  • Methodology: Are the research design, methods, and data analysis appropriate and clearly described?
  • Accuracy and Validity: Are the results logically presented and supported by evidence?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-structured, clear, and easy to follow?
  • References and Citations: Are references appropriate, current, and correctly cited?
  • Ethical Considerations: Does the study adhere to ethical guidelines (e.g., human/animal research approval, plagiarism)?

3. Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. The content should not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage.

4. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should decline to review if they have conflicts of interest (e.g., close collaboration, personal relationships, or competitive interests) that could bias their evaluation.

5. Review Process
Provide constructive and specific feedback for each section of the manuscript. Highlight both strengths and weaknesses. Suggest improvements regarding clarity, structure, analysis, or references. If applicable, identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, or data issues.

6. Recommendation Options
Reviewers typically select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept as is – Manuscript meets all standards.
  • Minor revision – Small edits needed before acceptance.
  • Major revision – Significant changes required; resubmission recommended.
  • Reject – Manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

7. Review Timeline
Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the agreed timeline (usually 2–4 weeks). If a delay is anticipated, notify the editor promptly.

8. Reporting Misconduct
If plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical violations are suspected, inform the editor immediately. Do not attempt to contact the authors directly regarding suspected misconduct.

9. Tone and Language
Maintain a professional, respectful, and constructive tone. Avoid personal comments or derogatory language.