Reviewer Guidance
Reviewers provide independent scholarly assessment and help editors make fair, well-reasoned decisions about work within the journal’s scope.
Review model and editorial responsibility
The journal’s stated model is double-anonymous peer review, normally with at least two independent reviewers. Editors may seek further expertise where the subject, method or reports require it. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final decisions are made by a qualified editor.
Before accepting
- Confirm that the topic and methods are within your expertise.
- Disclose personal, financial, professional, academic or institutional conflicts before reviewing.
- Accept only if you can complete a careful review within the agreed period.
- Decline when independence, confidentiality or sufficient expertise cannot be maintained.
What to assess
- Fit with the journal aims, scope and selected academic section.
- Importance and originality of the research question or synthesis.
- Appropriateness of the design, methods, data and analysis for the stated question.
- Whether results and interpretations are presented clearly and supported by evidence.
- Whether limitations, uncertainty, ethics and data transparency are addressed where relevant.
- Whether citations provide a fair and accurate account of prior research.
Constructive reports
Explain major concerns with specific evidence and distinguish essential changes from optional suggestions. Use professional, non-discriminatory language. Do not recommend citation of your own work unless it is directly relevant, and do not make comments that are unrelated to scholarly assessment.
Confidentiality and conflicts
Manuscripts, data, supplementary files, reviewer identities and editorial correspondence are confidential. Do not share or retain material beyond legitimate review needs, use unpublished information for personal or competitive advantage, or contact authors directly about the review.
Generative AI and external tools
Do not upload a confidential manuscript or substantial unpublished content to an external AI service that may retain or expose it. If an approved tool is used for limited support, the reviewer remains responsible for the report and must protect confidentiality.
Recommendations
Typical recommendations may include acceptance, revision or rejection, but the editor makes the final decision. Reviewers should explain the basis for their recommendation and notify the editor promptly if a serious ethics or integrity concern is identified.