Reviewer Guidelines

About this journal
 

Role of Reviewers

Peer reviewers support the editorial evaluation process through independent and objective assessment of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to examine the scholarly contribution, research design, analytical approach, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope. Review reports should provide clear academic comments that assist editors in reaching publication decisions and guide authors in improving the manuscript.

Reviewer Expertise and Acceptance of Invitation

Review invitations should be accepted only when the manuscript falls within the reviewer’s area of expertise. Reviewers should also ensure that sufficient time is available to complete the review within the journal’s timeline. When the topic falls outside the reviewer’s expertise or time constraints prevent completion of the review, the invitation should be declined promptly so the editor can invite another qualified reviewer.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. Manuscripts, data, and reviewer reports must not be shared with others or used for personal advantage. Communication regarding the manuscript should occur only through the editorial office. Contact with authors is not permitted. Consultation with another expert requires prior permission from the editor.

Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any potential competing interests that could affect impartial evaluation. Such situations may include professional collaboration, institutional affiliation, financial relationships, or personal associations with the authors. If a competing interest exists, the reviewer should inform the editor and decline the review if an unbiased evaluation cannot be ensured.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should remain attentive to possible ethical concerns in submitted manuscripts. These may include plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct. Any suspected ethical issues should be reported confidentially to the editor with a clear explanation. Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations or contact authors regarding such concerns.

Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation should focus on academic merit and contribution to knowledge. Reviewers should consider the originality of the research question, relevance to the journal’s scope, adequacy of theoretical grounding, appropriateness of research design, clarity of analysis, and overall scholarly contribution. Attention should also be given to clarity of writing and appropriate use of references.

Assessment of Manuscript Sections

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate the main components of the manuscript to determine the overall quality and contribution of the work.

Title and Abstract

The title should clearly represent the focus of the manuscript. The abstract should summarise the purpose, research approach, principal findings, and contribution.

Introduction and Literature Context

The introduction should clearly explain the research problem and its importance. The literature discussion should position the work within existing research and identify the knowledge gap addressed.

Methodology

The research design, data collection procedures, analytical methods, and theoretical foundation should be appropriate and clearly described.

Results and Analysis

Findings should be presented logically and supported by appropriate analytical methods, tables, or figures where required.

Discussion and Conclusion

The discussion should interpret findings in relation to existing knowledge. The conclusion should clearly describe the research contribution, implications, and limitations.

Review Quality and Constructive Feedback

Reviewer reports should present clear and reasoned comments that help authors improve the manuscript. Feedback should focus on academic content, interpretation of findings, and clarity of presentation. Personal criticism should be avoided. Comments should be written in a professional and objective tone.

Review Timeline

Reviewers are requested to respond to review invitations within the timeframe specified by the journal. Once a review assignment is accepted, the evaluation should be completed within the review period communicated by the editorial office. If circumstances prevent completion within the agreed timeline, the reviewer should inform the editorial office promptly.

Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations assist editors in evaluating submitted manuscripts. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the editorial team after consideration of reviewer reports and editorial assessment.

Top