Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. The purpose of peer review is to support informed editorial decision-making and to assist authors in improving the clarity, methodological rigor, and scholarly value of their work.
Role of Reviewers
Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. The purpose of peer review is to support informed editorial decision-making and to assist authors in improving the clarity, methodological rigor, and scholarly value of their work through independent, objective, and constructive evaluation.
Reviewer assessments are advisory in nature and form part of a structured editorial process overseen by the editorial team. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific merit and relevance, and to provide professional, evidence-based feedback that contributes to the integrity and advancement of scholarly communication.
Peer Review Model
The journal operates a single-blind peer-review model, in which reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. This model is intended to support informed and expert evaluation while preserving reviewer independence.
Reviewers are expected to maintain professional objectivity and to evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance. Potential biases related to authorship, institutional affiliation, or geographic origin must be avoided. Reviewers should inform the editorial team if they believe that a conflict of interest or other factor may compromise their ability to provide an impartial assessment.
The peer-review process is overseen by the editorial team, which is responsible for ensuring fairness, consistency, and adherence to the journal’s editorial and ethical standards.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript for personal, professional, or competitive advantage prior to publication. Any unpublished information disclosed during the review process must be treated as strictly confidential.
Reviewers should not involve third parties, including colleagues, students, or collaborators, in the evaluation of a manuscript without prior permission from the editorial team. Manuscript files and related materials should not be retained or stored beyond the completion of the review process.
Reviewers must ensure that manuscript content is not uploaded to external systems, including AI-based or automated tools, in ways that compromise confidentiality or data protection requirements.
Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation
Reviewers should accept review invitations only if:
- they have appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript, or a clearly defined portion of its content;
- they are able to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe;
- they have no conflicts of interest that could compromise objectivity.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to adhere to the journal’s confidentiality and ethical standards throughout the review process.
If a reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest, anticipates significant delays, or feels unable to provide an impartial and informed assessment, they should decline the invitation and, where appropriate, inform the editor. Reviewers are encouraged to communicate promptly with the editorial team should circumstances change after accepting an invitation.
Conduct of the Review
Reviewer reports should be clear, constructive, and evidence-based, with the primary aim of supporting the improvement of the manuscript. Comments should be specific, well-reasoned, and, where possible, supported by references or concrete examples.
Reviews should be respectful and professional in tone. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, or unsubstantiated allegations are not appropriate. Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between major issues that affect the validity, interpretation, or reliability of the work and minor issues related to presentation, structure, or clarity.
Comments intended for authors should focus on scientific and scholarly aspects of the manuscript. Any confidential concerns, such as suspected ethical issues or conflicts of interest, should be communicated directly to the editorial team rather than included in comments to authors.
Reviewer reports are intended to provide expert evaluation and guidance; they should not seek to impose arbitrary changes or rewrite the manuscript, but rather to offer constructive recommendations that assist authors in strengthening their work.
Communication with the Editorial Team
All communication related to the review process should take place exclusively through the journal’s submission system or official editorial channels. This ensures transparency, proper documentation, and fair handling of all correspondence.
Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript under review, nor should they use informal or external communication channels, including personal email, social media, or professional networking platforms, to discuss the manuscript.
Any questions, requests for clarification, or concerns arising during the review process should be communicated to the editorial team through the appropriate channels, allowing editors to manage the process consistently and impartially.
Reporting Concerns
Reviewers are encouraged to notify the editorial team of any concerns related to:
- potential plagiarism or excessive similarity;
- data integrity issues or inappropriate image manipulation;
- ethical concerns involving human participants or animal research;
- undisclosed or potential conflicts of interest.
Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editors and should not be included in comments intended for authors. Reviewers are not expected to conduct investigations but rather to draw the editorial team’s attention to issues that may warrant further assessment.
Where possible, reviewers are encouraged to provide specific observations or references that may assist the editors in evaluating the concern. All reported issues are handled by the editorial team in accordance with the journal’s editorial and ethical policies.