Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review aims to assess the validity, originality, significance and clarity of manuscripts, helping the editor reach informed decisions and improve the final publication.

General Conduct

• Accept review invitations only if you have the expertise, no conflict of interest, and can complete the review within the deadline.
• Keep the review confidential: do not share or discuss the manuscript, upload it to unauthorized third-party services (including AI tools that may store content) and do not use the manuscript’s ideas for personal gain.
• Provide a timely and constructive review, addressing the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, providing clear recommendations (accept, revise, reject) and detailed comments to both authors and editors.
• Maintain courteous and professional tone: reviews should not be rude, personal or discriminatory. Focus comments on the manuscript, not on the author.
• Declare any competing interests (financial, personal, institutional) immediately if they might affect your impartiality.

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing, consider:

• Does the manuscript address an important question or gap in the field?
• Is the methodology appropriate and adequately described? Are the data robust?
• Are results clearly presented, accurate and reproducible? Is there evidence of manipulation, duplication or misconduct?
• Are conclusions supported by the data? Are limitations acknowledged?
• Is the manuscript well-structured, clearly written, and accessible to the target audience?
• Are references appropriate and current? Is prior work correctly cited?
• Does the manuscript meet the journal’s ethical standards (human/animal research, consent, data sharing)?
• Are figures/tables clear, original and properly labelled? Are permissions for third-party material documented?

Review Report Components

• Summary: Provide a brief summary of what the manuscript claims to do and what you judge its major contributions to be.
• Major issues: Identify substantive concerns (methodology, data integrity, ethics, novelty) that must be addressed before publication.
• Minor issues: Note smaller corrections (typos, formatting, clarity, references).
• Recommendation: Choose one of the editorial categories (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) and justify your recommendation.

After Review

• If you identify suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data manipulation, fabricated results), alert the editor immediately rather than inform the authors directly.
• If substantial revision is requested, you may be re-invited to review the revised version; treat it as a new submission and focus on whether the author(s) addressed your earlier concerns.
• Recognise your role within the scholarly community: your review contributes to research quality and integrity. If you wish, you may register your review activity (e.g., via ORCID or reviewer recognition platforms).