For Reviewers

Reviewers help the editors make an informed decision and authors improve their work, following the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, version 2, 2017 (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers). Acceptance confirms expertise, availability and independence. A conflict of interest, discovery of an author’s identity or inability to meet the deadline must be reported promptly so that the editors can decide on replacement.

Manuscripts and correspondence remain confidential after assessment. Reviewers must not share materials, discuss them outside the authorised process, use unpublished ideas or data for personal benefit, or upload text to external services, including AI. Involving another specialist requires prior editorial consent and confidentiality.

Reports must be objective, respectful and reasoned. They assess scholarly contribution, methods, evidence, logic, sources and ethics. Substantive criticisms require arguments or references, and essential revisions are distinguished from suggestions. Personal attacks and citation demands aimed at increasing citation counts are unacceptable. Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, duplication or other misconduct is reported to the editors with reasons, without contacting authors directly. Reports may use free text or the editorial form and conclude with a recommendation to accept, revise, obtain further assessment or reject. The normal timescale is two to four weeks; reviewers receive no payment. Reviewers are responsible for their reports; editors make the decision. Questions go to the journal’s email address on the Contacts page.