Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers should assess the manuscript’s originality, relevance, methodological soundness, analytical quality, clarity, ethical acceptability, and contribution to scholarship or practice. Reviewers should support sound editorial decision-making and help authors improve their work where revision is appropriate.

Before Accepting an Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they:

• have suitable subject or methodological expertise;
• can provide an impartial review;
• do not have a significant conflict of interest; and
• can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline a review where there is an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could reasonably compromise impartiality. Examples include recent collaboration, close personal relationship, supervisory relationship, institutional proximity, direct academic competition, or financial interest.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, circulate, discuss, or use any part of the submission for personal, academic, financial, or competitive benefit. Review content and editorial correspondence must also be treated confidentially.

Review Standards

Reviews should be:

• evidence-based and specific;
• respectful and professional;
• free from personal, discriminatory, or hostile language;
• focused on the work rather than the author; and
• sufficiently reasoned to support the recommendation.

What Reviewers Should Comment On

Reviewers may consider, where relevant:

• fit with the journal’s scope;
• originality and significance;
• adequacy of literature engagement;
• clarity of research question or argument;
• design, methods, and analysis;
• interpretation of findings;
• ethical considerations;
• clarity of writing and organisation; and
• suitability of tables, figures, references, and supplementary materials.

Integrity Concerns

Reporting Suspected Misconduct

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, unethical research, authorship irregularity, citation manipulation, breach of confidentiality, or any other serious concern, the reviewer should report the matter confidentially to the journal and should not contact the authors directly. The journal’s procedures for handling such allegations are set out in the Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight policy.

Contact with Authors

Reviewers must not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript. All communication should take place through the journal.

Use of AI and External Tools

Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, substantial manuscript content, or confidential review materials into generative AI systems or unauthorised third-party tools that may compromise confidentiality, copyright, or data protection. If a reviewer wishes to use any external assistance that may affect confidentiality, prior editorial permission is required.

Recommendation

Reviewers should provide a reasoned recommendation, but final editorial decisions rest with the journal.

Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revision, reviewers should focus primarily on whether the authors have addressed the substantive concerns raised earlier. Entirely new major criticisms should not be introduced at a late stage unless they arise from the revised content or reflect a materially important issue previously overlooked.

Timeliness

If a reviewer cannot complete a review on time, the journal should be informed promptly so that appropriate arrangements can be made.