Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists editors in making sound publication decisions. Reviewer feedback also helps authors improve their manuscripts through constructive, specific, and academically grounded editorial communication.
Promptness & Availability
Reviewers should only accept manuscripts they have the genuine expertise and available time to review promptly. If unable to complete a review by the agreed deadline, they must notify the editor immediately so an alternative can be arranged.
Strict Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are privileged communications and must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or cite the manuscripts with others, nor use any information from them prior to publication.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism of the author is never appropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and support all judgements with specific, evidence-based arguments and references.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement claiming that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by an accurate and verifiable citation.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must promptly declare any conflicts of interest with respect to the research, the authors, or the funding bodies involved. If such conflicts exist, the reviewer must recuse themselves from the review process for that manuscript.
Constructive & Helpful Feedback
Beyond identifying weaknesses, reviewers are encouraged to offer specific, constructive suggestions that help authors improve the quality, clarity, and contribution of their work — fostering a culture of scholarly growth and collaboration.