Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating the quality, relevance, clarity, consistency, and scholarly contribution of manuscripts within their areas of expertise. All comments must have a clear scholarly basis, be academically justifiable, and be directed toward improving the substance of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations serve as considerations for the editors, while editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the editors.

Acceptance of Review Assignments

Reviewers should accept only assignments that fall within their areas of competence and can be completed carefully within the specified timeframe. Reviewers must promptly decline or return an assignment when:

• the subject matter of the manuscript falls outside their competence;
• the available time is insufficient to conduct a careful review;
• a conflict of interest may compromise objectivity;
• other circumstances prevent the review from being conducted responsibly.

Accepting a review assignment constitutes a commitment to provide an independent and objective evaluation in accordance with the journal's policies.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and all information obtained during the review process are confidential. Reviewers must not:

• disclose or discuss the manuscript with other parties;
• reproduce or use manuscript materials for purposes unrelated to the review;
• use unpublished data, ideas, methods, research findings, or other information for personal benefit or for the benefit of others;
• involve colleagues, students, assistants, or other parties in the review process;
• attempt to identify the authors through information contained within or outside the manuscript.

The obligation to maintain confidentiality continues after the review process has been completed.

Objectivity and Constructive Review

Evaluations must be based on the scholarly quality of the manuscript and must not be influenced by personal interests or non-academic considerations. Criticism must address the substance of the manuscript, be expressed clearly and professionally, and be supported by academically justifiable reasons.

Personal attacks, demeaning language, discriminatory comments, and the imposition of a reviewer's academic preferences are unacceptable. Differences in theory, methodology, approach, or interpretation do not in themselves constitute grounds for a negative evaluation when the approach adopted by the authors is academically defensible.

Assessment of the Manuscript

Reviewers assess manuscripts by considering the characteristics of the discipline, article type, research approach, and purpose of the study. The assessment includes:

• alignment with the journal's aims and scope;
• clarity of the research problem, objectives, or research questions;
• adequacy of the theoretical foundation or conceptual framework;
• appropriateness of the research method or approach;
• adequacy and reliability of the data, materials, documents, or sources;
• accuracy and depth of the analysis;
• consistency among the results, discussion, and conclusions;
• relevance and appropriate use of references;
• clarity of presentation;
• scholarly contribution or novelty of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not impose a particular theory, method, approach, or form of analysis when the approach adopted by the authors is appropriate to the research objectives and academically defensible.

Sources, Citations, and Research Integrity

Reviewers may recommend genuinely relevant sources that would strengthen the scholarly foundation, argumentation, or analysis of the manuscript. Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations or use the review process to increase citations to themselves, their colleagues, their institutions, or particular journals.

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, substantial overlap with other works, improper use of sources, or other research integrity concerns must be reported confidentially to the editors with sufficient information for further examination. Reviewers must not independently determine that misconduct has occurred, as investigation and follow-up are conducted through the editorial process.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose promptly any relationship or interest that may affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the independence of their evaluation. They must decline or return an assignment where the conflict may compromise objectivity. The categories of conflict, disclosure requirements, and management measures are set out in Conflict of Interest.

Timeliness and Communication with Editors

Reviewers must complete their reviews within the specified timeframe. Any delay or circumstance affecting the completion of the assignment must be communicated promptly to the editors.

Reviewers must communicate manuscript-related questions through OJS and must not contact authors directly.

Reviewers must not disclose their identities or take actions that reveal author or reviewer identities during peer review.

Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Reviewers remain responsible for their assessments. Automated tools may be used only for technical tasks that preserve confidentiality and do not generate scholarly evaluations. No unpublished manuscript content may be sent to an external AI service, regardless of excerpt length. See AI & Automated Tools Policy.