Duties of Reviewers

01 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviewers provide valuable input that assists the Editorial Board in making informed editorial decisions regarding submitted manuscripts. Their evaluations contribute to maintaining the scientific and scholarly quality of the journal. Where appropriate, reviewers may also offer constructive feedback to help authors improve the clarity, rigour, and overall quality of their work.

02 Promptness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, or who know that they cannot provide a timely review, should immediately notify the Editorial Office so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Adhering to agreed review timelines is essential to ensure an efficient editorial process and timely publication.

03 Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or share any part of a manuscript with others without explicit authorisation from the Editor-in-Chief. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept strictly confidential and must not be used for personal advantage or for the advantage or disadvantage of any other person or organisation.

04 Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear and well-supported arguments. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate and must be avoided. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback that assists authors in improving their work. Evaluations should focus on the content of the manuscript, ensuring scholarly rigour, clarity, and originality, and must be free from bias or prejudice.

05 Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers are responsible for identifying relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that has been previously reported should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. If reviewers are aware of substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published paper, they must bring this to the attention of the editors.

Reviewers must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).

06 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their objectivity in evaluating a manuscript. These may include financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationships with any of the authors, organisations, or institutions connected to the work.

If such a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review and notify the editor immediately. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts in which they have competing interests that could compromise their impartial judgement.

07 Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

Reviewers are expected to assist the editorial team in identifying potential instances of plagiarism or substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and other published works. If reviewers suspect that a manuscript contains plagiarised content, fabricated data, or unethical duplication of previously published material, they must inform the editor immediately with relevant details and references.

Reviewers should not attempt to investigate or contact the authors directly. All concerns regarding suspected misconduct should be communicated confidentially through the Editorial Office.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to provide a timely, impartial, constructive, and confidential assessment of the manuscript and to promptly disclose any circumstances that may compromise their ability to conduct an independent review.