For Reviewers
How reviewers are chosen
Peer review protects the quality of every journal. We invite reviewers who:
- Have no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions
- Have expertise in the subject area and can evaluate the work objectively
- Have recent publications in the relevant field
- Can complete the review within the required timeframe
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts. Authors may suggest reviewers, but the journal makes the final choice.
What to assess
- Significance and novelty of the research
- Academic integrity and scientific soundness
- Clarity and presentation
- Validity and originality
Reviews should be impartial and free of bias, regardless of the authors' nationality, gender, religious or political beliefs, or any commercial interests.
Your recommendation
Provide a detailed report and an overall recommendation within 14 days of accepting the invitation. The options are:
- Acceptance
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Rejection
Submit your report promptly. If you need more time, ask the editorial office for an extension. The Academic Editor makes the final decision and may request further reports if reviewers disagree.
Conduct and confidentiality
- Conflicts of interest. Declare any relevant conflict before you start. If one arises during the review, you may withdraw.
- Confidentiality. Do not share details of the manuscript or contact the authors without permission from the editors.
- Manuscript copies. Destroy all copies after you complete the review.
- Self-citation. Do not ask authors to cite your own work unless there is a valid scholarly reason.
Reporting misconduct
If you notice possible plagiarism, duplicate publication or a breach of research ethics, report it to the editorial office immediately. Allegations are investigated following COPE guidance. See the Publication Ethics page.