For Reviewers

Who we expect you to be:

• Doctorate in the topic and ≥2 WoS-indexed papers in the last few years; still active in the field.
• Send us your CV if you want to volunteer.

Your main job:

• Give a fair, fast, confidential critique that helps editors decide and authors improve.
• Flag anything that feels wrong: plagiarism, ethical slips, data doubts, citation stacking, conflict-of-interest issues, etc.
• Stay within scope: don’t demand cites to your own work unless it really helps.

How we pick and assign referees:

• Assigned editors match expertise, then collect a signed COI form.
• Managing editor clears the COI; at least two outside reviewers start the clock.
• If the first two reports clash, we may invite an extra board member.

Review cycle:

• 7 days to accept or decline the invitation; 20 days to return the full report.
• We normally allow two rounds. After each round authors must answer every point; you check whether the answers satisfy you and recommend:
  – Accept (tiny or no changes)
  – Minor revision
  – Major revision
  – Reject
• You can change your recommendation at any stage.

What a useful report looks like:

• Does the paper fit the journal’s aims?
• Is the article type right, title/abstract informative, language clear?
• Are data complete, methods sound, conclusions justified?
• Any missing statements (ethics, funding, data availability)?
• Give concrete, courteous suggestions.

AI tools:

• You are personally responsible for every word in your report.
• Generative AI can hallucinate or leak content; we discourage its use.
• If you do use it, declare it at the top of your report.

Training & ethics:

• We follow COPE flow-charts on misconduct, authorship, conflicts, appeals.
• Keep everything you receive confidential and archive it once the decision is final.

Treat the task as a service to the discipline and to your own reputation—only recommend work you believe genuinely advances the field.