Introduction

Peer reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing. Through careful and impartial evaluation, reviewers help editors assess the rigour, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Their work supports authors in strengthening their research and ensures that published scholarship meets disciplinary standards.

This resource outlines what is expected of peer reviewers, the ethical principles that guide the review process, and best practices for delivering constructive and responsible reviews. It is intended to support both new and experienced reviewers in fulfilling their role professionally.

The Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review serves as a quality assurance mechanism within scholarly communication. It provides an independent assessment of research methods, arguments, and conclusions by experts in the field. Reviewers do not determine publication outcomes; rather, they provide informed recommendations that support editorial decision-making.

Effective peer review strengthens the scholarly record by identifying methodological weaknesses, clarifying arguments, and ensuring that conclusions are supported by evidence. When conducted responsibly, it improves both individual manuscripts and broader academic standards.

What Makes a Good Peer Reviewer

A good reviewer approaches each manuscript with objectivity, fairness, and intellectual honesty. Subject expertise is essential, but it must be accompanied by openness to diverse perspectives and methods. Reviewers should assess manuscripts on scholarly merit rather than personal preference or theoretical alignment.

Professional reviewers are reliable and respectful. They accept review invitations only when they have appropriate expertise and sufficient time to complete the review thoroughly and on schedule.

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must remain independent and free from conflicts of interest. Situations involving personal relationships, collaborative history, institutional affiliation, or financial interest may compromise impartiality and should be disclosed to the editor immediately.

If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the invitation. Transparency protects the credibility of the review process and maintains trust between authors, editors, and the journal.

Confidentiality and Ethical Handling of Manuscripts

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of a submission outside the review process. Unpublished material may not be cited, distributed, or used for personal research advantage.

Confidentiality extends to reviewer reports and editorial communications. Respecting confidentiality is fundamental to ethical peer review.

Evaluating Scholarly Quality and Rigor

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts systematically and fairly. This includes assessing the clarity of the research question, the appropriateness of methods, the quality of analysis, and the strength of conclusions. Reviewers should also consider whether the manuscript engages meaningfully with relevant literature.

The goal is not to rewrite the manuscript or impose stylistic preferences, but to assess whether the work meets disciplinary standards and contributes to scholarly knowledge.

Providing Constructive and Professional Feedback

Reviewer comments should be clear, specific, and constructive. Effective feedback identifies strengths as well as areas for improvement and explains concerns in a way that helps authors revise their work. Vague or dismissive comments are unhelpful and undermine the review process.

Criticism should focus on the work, not the author. Professional tone and respectful language are essential, even when recommending rejection.

Scope of Reviewer Responsibility

Reviewers are not responsible for copyediting, formatting enforcement, or language polishing, unless specifically requested by the editor. Their primary role is scholarly evaluation rather than technical correction.

Reviewers should also avoid making definitive publication decisions in their comments to authors. Recommendations are advisory; final decisions rest with the editor.

Use of AI Tools in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or substantial excerpts into AI tools or external systems that compromise confidentiality. Using AI to summarise or analyse manuscripts without explicit permission raises ethical and data protection concerns.

If reviewers use limited tools for personal note-taking or language support, they remain fully responsible for the content of their review and must ensure that confidentiality is preserved at all times.

Timeliness and Professional Commitment

Peer review relies on timely participation. Reviewers should adhere to agreed deadlines or notify the editor promptly if delays arise. Unresponsive or significantly late reviews disrupt editorial workflows and disadvantage authors.

Accepting a review invitation implies a professional commitment to complete the task responsibly and within the specified timeframe.

Identifying Ethical Concerns

Reviewers play an important role in identifying potential ethical issues, including plagiarism, data manipulation, unethical research practices, or inappropriate citation behaviour. Suspected concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor rather than raised directly with the author.

Reviewers should avoid making accusations. Their role is to flag concerns and allow editors to follow established procedures.

Reviewer Recognition and Professional Conduct

Peer review is a form of scholarly service. While reviews are typically anonymous, reviewers are expected to treat the role with the same professionalism as other academic responsibilities. Courtesy, diligence, and integrity are central to effective reviewing.

The journal values reviewers who contribute thoughtfully and responsibly to the peer review process and recognises reviewing as an essential component of scholarly contribution.

Conclusion: Peer Review as Scholarly Stewardship

Peer review is not merely an evaluative task; it is a form of stewardship over the scholarly record. By providing careful, fair, and constructive assessments, reviewers support editorial decision-making and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

Responsible reviewing strengthens trust in academic publishing and reinforces the collective standards that underpin scholarly work.