Ethical Guidelines for the Reviewers

The peer review process is a critical component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play a central role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and credibility of academic work. Their evaluations support the Editor’s decision-making and help authors improve their manuscripts. Given this responsibility, reviewers are expected to uphold the highest ethical and professional standards when performing their duties.


1. Suitability and Promptness

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Notify the Editor immediately if they lack the subject expertise required to evaluate a manuscript.

  • Respond promptly to review invitations and submit their reports within the specified timeframe.

  • Inform the Editor of any possible delays and suggest a revised submission date.

  • Avoid unnecessary delays in the review process or requesting irrelevant additional data or information.


2. Standards of Objectivity

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, maintaining scholarly rigor and professionalism.

  • Comments should be clear, specific, and supported by evidence to ensure transparency and fairness.

  • Reviewers must avoid personal criticism of the author(s).

  • Evaluation must be based solely on the quality, originality, and relevance of the research, free from any personal, financial, or intellectual bias.


3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

  • Reviewers must not use unpublished material from a manuscript for their own research without explicit permission from the Editor.

  • All data and findings in the reviewed paper must be treated as confidential.

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest—personal, financial, professional, or ideological—that could influence their judgment.

  • If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review and promptly notify the Editor.


4. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts and their contents are confidential and must not be discussed or shared without the Editor’s authorization.

  • Reviewers are ethically bound not to disclose or use any information from the manuscript prior to publication.


5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should:

  • Inform the Editor if they suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct in the manuscript.

  • Alert the Editor if unethical research practices involving human participants (e.g., minors, vulnerable populations) are identified.

  • Report any duplication of previously published work or unacknowledged reuse of others’ data.


6. Evaluation of Originality

When assessing originality, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the manuscript adds new insights or knowledge to the field.

  • Whether the research questions or hypotheses align with the stated objectives.


7. Structure and Quality of Presentation

Reviewers should assess the overall organization and presentation of the manuscript, including:

  • Clarity and coherence of the text and argumentation.

  • Language proficiency and readability—if English quality is inadequate, recommend language editing.

  • Originality and clarity of figures, tables, and illustrations.

  • Consistency between data, results, and discussion.

  • Soundness of the research methodology and statistical analysis.

  • Adherence to the journal’s prescribed formatting and referencing guidelines (APA style).


8. Review Report

  • Reviewers must provide detailed, constructive, and respectful feedback using the prescribed Reviewer Report Form.

  • A concise summary at the beginning of the review report should outline the reviewer’s overall assessment and recommendation.

  • All major and minor revisions should be clearly identified, with justifications for each comment.

  • Reviewers should select one of the following decisions: Accept Without Revision, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject, and support it with clear reasoning.

  • Reviewers may be asked to reassess revised manuscripts to verify that their recommendations have been properly addressed.

  • The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor, who may seek additional reviews or request revisions based on reviewer input.


9. Professional Integrity

Reviewers should perform their duties conscientiously, recognizing that peer review is both a professional obligation and a contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge. They are expected to maintain professionalism, fairness, and respect throughout the review process.