For Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

Our review process is double-blind: reviewers evaluate submissions without knowing the authors' identities. We expect the following from reviewers.

Responsibilities

• Respond promptly when invited to review: the invitation comes with the abstract. Decline if you have a conflict of interest or lack relevant expertise.
• Evaluate manuscripts for quality, originality, methodological rigor, and significance to the journal's scope.
• Provide one of three recommendations: accept, request revisions, or reject – with clear, constructive reasoning.
• Keep manuscripts and review contents confidential until the article is published.
• Don't upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to an AI tool; your assessment must be your own. If you used an AI tool for anything else, such as polishing your own wording, say so in your report.
• Remain impartial and disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office.
• Respect the editor's final decision authority.

What we look for

• Subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscripts you'd be asked to review.
• A publication record in a similar area – as a co-author, sole author, or through closely related work.
• Willingness to turn around a review within a reasonable window once accepted.

Recognition

After a completed review, reviewers receive a certificate and a 50% discount on article processing charges for articles they submit afterwards. Reviewing is currently unpaid.