Reviewer Guidelines

1) Invitation to Review

As a reviewer, you will receive an email invitation to review a journal article. The email contains response hyperlinks (e.g., Accept / Decline).

Click the appropriate hyperlink in the invitation email.
You will be directed to your Reviewer Account.
Follow the on-screen instructions to access the manuscript and submit your review.

2) What to Consider When Reviewing

When reviewing any manuscript, please evaluate the paper carefully and provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.

A. Ethics

1) Plagiarism

If you believe the manuscript substantially copies another published or unpublished work, inform the Editor immediately and provide:

The suspected source (full citation, if possible)
The overlapping sections or key similarities
Any supporting details (links/DOI, title, author, year, journal)

2) Defamation / Libel

If the manuscript contains statements about individuals or organizations that are:

inaccurate,
unsubstantiated, or
emotionally charged and potentially harmful,
please notify the Editor. If the paper appears potentially libellous, the Editor may request clarification from the author.

3) Fraud / Fabrication

Fraud can be difficult to detect. However, if you suspect results may be falsified or manipulated, raise the concern to the Editor with clear reasons (e.g., inconsistent data, impossible results, suspicious patterns).

B. Confidentiality

1) Do Not Disclose to Others

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents:

Do not share the manuscript.
Do not discuss it with others without Editor authorization.
Do not use unpublished content, data, or ideas for your own research without the author’s written consent.
Do not use privileged information obtained via peer review for personal gain.

2) Consultation With a Colleague (Limited)

Consulting a single colleague may be appropriate in limited cases, but you must:

Ask the Editor first, and
Ensure the colleague also maintains full confidentiality.

If a student is involved, the student should communicate directly with the Editor, and confidentiality remains mandatory.

3) Double-Blind Peer Review

This journal uses a double-blind review model:

Reviewer identity is hidden from the author.
Author identity is hidden from the reviewer.
Please avoid language in your comments that could reveal your identity.

C. Structure and Content Evaluation

1) Originality

Assess whether the manuscript:

Presents something new and interesting
Adds to the body of knowledge
Has an important research question suitable for publication

To evaluate novelty and fit, consider the manuscript within the broader literature (e.g., via Web of Science or Scopus). Compare it with highly cited or widely read papers in the field. If the topic has been covered previously, forward relevant references to the Editor.

2) Layout and Format

Authors must follow the journal’s author guidelines (including manuscript structure and presentation). If the manuscript fails to comply and this has not been noted by the Editor:

Flag this issue to the Editor, and/or
Note it clearly in your review.

In some cases, the Editor may allow formatting issues to be corrected later if the study is highly original. In other cases, the Editor may require restructuring before the review process continues.

3) Title

Check whether the title:

Clearly describes the content
Contains key searchable terms (keywords)
Reflects the significance of the study
Is logical, specific, and not misleading

4) Structured Abstract

Confirm that:

All mandatory fields are completed
The abstract accurately matches the manuscript content (aim, method, results, conclusion)
Claims are consistent with the findings reported

5) Introduction

Evaluate whether the introduction:

States the aim and research question clearly
Provides sufficient background and context
Positions the study within current literature
Explains how the study fills a gap, challenges, or extends prior work
Does not omit major relevant references

6) Methodology

Assess whether the methodology is clear, appropriate, and replicable:

Data collection process is explained accurately
Research design matches the research question
Procedures are described step-by-step
New/novel methods are explained in adequate detail
Sampling strategy is appropriate and justified
Tools/equipment/materials are described sufficiently
Data types and measurements are defined precisely
The description enables replication

7) Statistical Errors

Statistical mistakes are common. Pay close attention to:

Correct test selection and assumptions
Reporting completeness (e.g., effect size, p-value, CI where applicable)
Consistency between tables/figures and text
Interpretation accuracy (no overstated claims)

8) Results

Check whether:

Results are presented clearly and logically
Tables/figures are used effectively
Analysis methods match the research design
The results support the stated findings (no gaps between data and claims)

9) Discussion and Conclusion

Assess whether:

Claims are reasonable and supported by the results
Interpretations do not exceed what data can justify
Findings are linked to literature and theory appropriately
The conclusion synthesizes the paper well
The paper explains how it contributes to knowledge (supporting or contradicting prior theories with justification)

10) Graphics and Tables

Where included, evaluate whether:

Figures/tables are necessary and informative
Data are described accurately
Titles, labels, and units are complete and consistent
Formatting is consistent throughout
Improvements can be suggested (clarity, readability, ordering)

11) Language Quality

If English quality reduces clarity:

Do not copy-edit line-by-line.
Instead, mention the issue in your review (e.g., grammar, coherence, academic style).
In severe cases, inform the Editor that professional language editing/sub-editing may be needed.

3) Guiding Questions for Scoring the Manuscript

Use the following guiding questions when scoring:

Originality: Does the paper provide new and significant information that justifies publication?
Relationship to Literature: Does the paper show adequate understanding of relevant literature and cite an appropriate range of sources? Is any key work ignored?
Methodology: Is the argument built on a suitable theoretical/conceptual basis? Is the research design appropriate and well executed? Are the methods suitable and well explained?
Results: Are results clear and analyzed appropriately? Do the conclusions connect logically to the results and other sections of the paper?
Implications for Research/Practice/Society: Are implications clearly stated and consistent with findings? Does the study bridge theory and practice? Can it be applied in practice, teaching, public policy, or further research? What is the potential societal impact?
Quality of Communication: Is the argument clearly expressed for the journal’s audience? Is the writing readable and appropriately technical (sentence clarity, jargon control, acronym use, structure)?

4) How to Submit Your Review

Write your comments using the Reviewer Report Template.
Attach the completed template file when submitting your review to the Editor.

5) Reviewer Recommendations (Decision Options)

After completing the review, provide one recommendation to the Editor:

Accept Submission: The manuscript meets standards and is ready for acceptance.
Revisions Required: Minor revisions are needed.
Resubmit for Review: Major revisions are required and the manuscript should be reviewed again.
Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript does not fit the journal scope and should be submitted to another journal.
Decline Submission: The manuscript is not feasible for publication.
See Comments: You cannot provide a clear decision; the Editor should decide based on your comments.