Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are expected to critically evaluate manuscripts within their area of expertise and provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback. Reviews should assist authors in improving the quality, clarity, and scholarly contribution of their work.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Assess the originality, significance, methodological rigor, and relevance of the manuscript.
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study and suggest ways to improve clarity, structure, and argumentation.
• Evaluate whether the manuscript meets the journal’s publication criteria.
• Provide clear, evidence-based comments supported by scholarly reasoning or references where appropriate.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following:

Expertise

• Is the manuscript within your area of expertise?
• If the topic falls outside your expertise, please inform the editor promptly and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.

Availability

• Reviews are generally expected to be completed within two weeks.
• If you are unable to meet the deadline or require additional time, notify the editor as soon as possible.

Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, professional, institutional, or personal) to the editor before starting the review.
• If a significant conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must:

• Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Not share, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal research or advantage.
• Refrain from contacting authors directly.
• Seek permission from the editorial office before forwarding a review invitation to another colleague.

Conducting the Review

Reviewers should ensure that:

• Reviews are objective, respectful, and professional in tone.
• Personal criticism of authors is avoided.
• Defamatory, offensive, or inappropriate language is not used.
• Comments to authors and confidential comments to editors are consistent and do not contradict each other.

Reporting Standards

• Opinions should be clearly expressed and supported by reasoned arguments.
• Suggestions for improvement should be specific and constructive.
• Reviewers should not request citation of their own work unless it is directly relevant and justified.

Final Review Check

Before submitting the review, reviewers are encouraged to reflect on the following:

• Is the feedback clear, fair, and helpful?
• Is the tone professional and respectful?
• Would you feel comfortable receiving this review as an author?

Communication with the Editorial Office

Any concerns regarding the review process, ethical issues, or conflicts of interest should be promptly communicated to the editorial board.