Hits: 2801

Reviewer Guidelines

There are several points you need to consider for every article you review:

Ethics

Plagiarism
If you have reason to believe that an article is a substantial copy of another work please let the Editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.

Fraud
Although it can be very difficult to detect if you suspect the results in an article to be falsified please raise the matter with the Editor.

Permitted Use of AI
Reviewers may use AI tools for limited purposes such as checking grammar, language refinement, or summarizing non-confidential content offline or through secure, non-data-retaining tools. However, critical evaluation, scientific judgment, and final recommendations must be based entirely on the reviewer’s own expertise. 

Confidentiality

Do not disclose to others

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others unless otherwise authorised by the Editor. Unpublished information or material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Reviewers must not upload any part of a submitted manuscript to AI tools or platforms that store, learn from, or reuse the uploaded data. Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be shared with any system that retains information.

Single-blind peer review

The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. To help preserve the integrity of this process, please do not reveal your name within the text of your review.

 

Structure and content

  • Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?
  • Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?
  • Methodology: Is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?
  • Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?
  • Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?
  • Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal’s readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.