For Reviewers

Peer reviewers contribute independent subject expertise to scholarly evaluation. Reviewer selection should reflect manuscript relevance, expertise, research experience, availability and absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest.

Before accepting a review

• Accept only when the manuscript is reasonably within your area of expertise.
• Disclose any financial, professional, institutional or personal relationship that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, your judgment.
• Confirm that you can complete the review within the requested timeframe; decline promptly if you cannot.
• Treat the invitation, manuscript and all associated files as confidential.

How to prepare a useful review

A strong review helps the editor assess the manuscript and helps the authors improve the work. Comments should be specific, evidence-based, respectful and proportionate to the importance of the issue.

• Briefly summarize the manuscript and its main contribution.
• Identify major concerns affecting validity, interpretation, ethics or reporting.
• Provide minor comments on clarity, presentation or smaller technical issues.
• Distinguish comments intended for authors from confidential comments intended only for the editor.
• Avoid requesting unnecessary citations to your own work or changes unrelated to the manuscript’s scientific quality.

Confidentiality and AI-assisted tools

Reviewers must protect unpublished manuscript information. Manuscript text, figures, data or supplementary files should not be uploaded to public or third-party generative-AI systems when this would disclose confidential material. If a journal permits a specific AI-assisted workflow, reviewers should follow that journal’s documented policy and remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their review.

Suspected integrity concerns

Suspected plagiarism, image manipulation, fabricated data or other ethical concerns should be reported privately to the handling editor. Reviewers should not independently contact authors, institutions or third parties to investigate a confidential submission.

Reviewer recognition

Where recognition is offered, it should acknowledge substantive, constructive and timely reviewing. Recognition must not depend on whether the reviewer recommends acceptance, revision or rejection. Certificates, acknowledgements or development opportunities should reflect service quality and professionalism.