Review Guidelines

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process ensures that all submitted manuscripts meet high standards of academic integrity, methodological rigour, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scholarly quality and international reputation of the journal.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

2.1 Objectivity and Academic Rigour

  • Provide a fair, unbiased, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript.
  • Evaluate the work solely on scholarly merit, regardless of authors’ nationality, affiliation, gender, or background.
  • Avoid personal criticism; comments must be professional and constructive.

2.2 Confidentiality

Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.

  • Do not share, distribute, or use any information from a manuscript for personal or third-party benefit.
  • Do not discuss the content with others unless authorised by the Editor.

2.3 Ethical Considerations

  • Report any concerns about plagiarism, duplication, data fabrication, unethical research practices, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Inform the Editor immediately if you suspect misconduct.

2.4 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review if :

  • They have a personal or professional relationship with the authors.
  • They have competing research, financial interests, or intellectual rivalry.
  • They feel unable to provide an objective evaluation.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript on the following aspects:

3.1 Originality and Contribution

  • Novelty of the research question, approach, or findings.
  • Contribution to the field and relevance to an international scholarly audience.

3.2 Quality of Research and Methodology

  • Clarity and appropriateness of methods and design.
  • Correctness and robustness of data analysis.
  • Use of valid and ethical research procedures.

3.3 Literature Review

  • Adequacy, relevance, and currency of cited literature.
  • Engagement with international scholarship.

3.4 Argumentation and Clarity

  • Logical coherence and clarity of writing.
  • Clear presentation of results and discussion.
  • Soundness of conclusions based on evidence.

3.5 Structure and Presentation

  • Compliance with journal formatting and academic writing standards.
  • Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.

4. Review Recommendations

Reviewers should select one of the following outcomes :

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required

Reject

Each recommendation must be supported by clear, constructive, and actionable comments.

5. Timeliness

  • Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the agreed timeframe.
  •  
  • If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should notify the Editorial Office as early as possible.

6. Anonymity

  • The journal follows a double-blind peer-review system.
  • Reviewers must ensure their comments do not reveal their identity.

Reviewers will not know the identity of the authors, and vice versa.

7. Use of AI Tools

  • Reviewers may use AI tools only as supportive assistants (e.g., grammar checking), not for judgment or decision-making.
  • Reviewers must not upload manuscript content into external AI systems that store data.
  • Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy and confidentiality of the review.