Instructions for Reviewers

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field addressed by the manuscript. The selection process ensures that reviewers possess the necessary qualifications and knowledge to provide a rigorous and impartial assessment of the manuscript. Factors taken into account in the selection include:
• Academic and professional expertise relevant to the content of the manuscript.
• Previous experience in academic publishing, such as reviewing for similar journals or publishing in the field.
• Impartiality and the absence of conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript.
• Availability to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe.

In some cases, editors may select reviewers based on author recommendations or suggestions from the editorial board.

Number of Reviewers

Typically, each manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers in order to ensure a balanced and fair evaluation. This helps provide a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of the manuscript, ensuring that all aspects of the work are adequately examined.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a key role in maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publishing. Their primary responsibilities include:
• Conducting a thorough evaluation of the manuscript in terms of its significance, originality, methodology, and accuracy.
• Providing constructive feedback to authors in order to improve the clarity, quality, and scientific rigor of the manuscript.
• Identifying weaknesses or deficiencies in the manuscript that could affect its validity, reproducibility, or interpretation.
• Recommending a decision on the manuscript, including acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection, based on the review.
• Reporting any conflicts of interest or bias that could affect the review process.

Ethics of Peer Review

Reviewers must adhere to high ethical standards throughout the review process, including:
• Objectivity. Reviewers should provide an impartial assessment of the manuscript. Reviews should be based on the quality of the research, not on personal opinions or preferences.
• Fairness. All authors should be treated equally, and reviews should be based on the content of the manuscript rather than the identity of the authors.
• Respect for intellectual property. Reviewers must not plagiarize and must not use or disclose ideas, data, or materials from the manuscript without proper citation.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that may compromise their assessment of a manuscript. Such conflicts may include:
• Personal relationships with the authors (e.g. family members, close friends).
• Academic or professional rivalries that may create bias.
• Financial or commercial interests related to the subject of the manuscript.

If a reviewer believes that they cannot provide an impartial evaluation because of any of the above conflicts, they should withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality of the Procedure and Submitted Materials

Peer review is a confidential process, and reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and all related materials. Reviewers are required to:
• Not share or discuss the manuscript or its content with others outside the review process.
• Use the manuscript solely for the purpose of evaluation, and not for personal or professional benefit.
• Not retain copies of the manuscript or any author materials after the review has been completed, unless this has been expressly permitted by the Editorial Board.

Procedure When a Reviewer Wishes to Propose a Co-Reviewer

In certain circumstances, a reviewer may wish to propose a co-reviewer (another expert) to assist in the evaluation of the manuscript. This may be done if:
• The reviewer believes that they do not have sufficient expertise in a particular part of the manuscript.
• The reviewer is unable to complete the review due to time constraints or other justified reasons.

If a reviewer wishes to propose a co-reviewer, they should:
• Request approval from the editor before involving a third party.
• Ensure that the co-reviewer meets the same ethical and professional standards.
• The editor will ensure that the proposed reviewer has no conflict of interest and is willing to complete the review.

How to Conduct a Review and the Time Available

Reviewers should:
• Provide a thorough evaluation of the manuscript, including its structure, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Assess the clarity and readability of the manuscript, as well as whether it adequately communicates its findings.

Reviewers are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete their review. If they require more time, they should contact the editorial office and request an extension. Timely reviews are essential for maintaining an efficient publication process.

What Reviewers Should Do If They Suspect Research or Publication Misconduct

If reviewers suspect research or publication misconduct, they should immediately inform the editor. This includes:
• Plagiarism (e.g. copying data, text, or ideas without proper citation).
• Fabrication or falsification of data.
• Authorship disputes that may indicate unethical practices.

Reviewers should provide the editor with evidence of the suspected misconduct, and the editor will proceed in accordance with the journal’s policy.

How to Prepare a Review Report

Reviewers should prepare a detailed review report that includes:
• A summary of the manuscript, that is, the type of research, a brief description of the problem or question guiding the study, the aim of the research, the theoretical context, the type of sample, the methodology, the findings, the interpretation, and the conclusions.
• An evaluation of the scientific value, that is, an assessment of the validity of the research methods, results, and conclusions.
• The strengths of the manuscript, that is, the positive aspects that should be highlighted.
• Areas for improvement, that is, feedback on where the authors can improve their work, including issues that should be clarified or additional research that should be carried out.
• Recommendations, that is, the review decision itself (acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, rejection), together with the rationale for the recommendation.

Reviewers should ensure that their feedback is constructive, offering suggestions for improving the manuscript while maintaining respect and professionalism.

Who Owns the Review

The review report is the property of the journal and remains confidential. Reviewers may not share their reports or opinions outside the review process. Once the report has been submitted, it becomes the intellectual property of the journal and is used to support the editorial decision regarding the manuscript.

Decision on Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection

After the editor receives the reviews, they make one of the following decisions:
• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any further changes.
• Minor revision: The authors are invited to make minor changes and resubmit the manuscript for final approval. These revisions may include clarification, correction of minor errors, or addressing minor methodological issues.
• Major revision: The authors must address the significant concerns raised by the reviewers and resubmit the manuscript. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of review.
• Reject: The manuscript is considered unsuitable for publication in the journal because it does not fit the journal’s scope, or because of significant deficiencies in the research, methodology, or presentation.

The reviewer’s recommendation is not binding, but it strongly influences the editor’s decision.

Review of Submitted Revisions and the Appeals Procedure

If a manuscript is revised, the reviewer may be asked to examine the revised version. The reviewer should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed all the shortcomings identified in the original review.

If the author does not agree with the editor’s decision, they have the right to file an appeal. The appeal should be based on:
• a clear explanation of why the author believes the decision was incorrect;
• new evidence or clarification of previous misunderstandings.

The editor will consider the appeal and, if necessary, may consult the reviewer again or invite additional reviewers in order to make a final decision.

Conclusion

Reviewers play a key role in academic publishing. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers help ensure the integrity, quality, and ethical standards of the journal. At the same time, their contribution helps maintain the credibility of published research and supports the wider scholarly community.