Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide written, informed, objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of manuscripts within the agreed timeframe. Reviews should focus on the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological rigor, technical soundness, ethical standards, clarity of reporting, and the validity and importance of the work for the journal’s readership.

Reviewers should assess whether the research question, methods, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions are appropriate and adequately supported by the data presented. They should also identify important relevant work that has not been cited where this is necessary for accuracy, context, or scholarly completeness.

Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate; comments should be expressed clearly, respectfully, and with supporting reasons. Recommendations should be supported by clear reasons and should distinguish essential concerns from optional suggestions for improvement.

Ethical concerns and suspected misconduct

Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor of any well-founded concerns or the knowledge of possible violations of ethical standards by the authors, including suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap with published or submitted work, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate citation practices, serious methodological flaws, or concerns relating to research ethics or reporting.

If reviewers become aware of a possible simultaneous or parallel submission of the same manuscript to another journal or publisher, they should notify the Editor.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest or other relationships or activities that could reasonably be perceived to affect their review, and they must decline the review if such a conflict exists or if they cannot provide an impartial assessment.

Any reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to assess a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review in a timely manner, should inform the Editor without delay and decline the invitation where appropriate.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and all associated review materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, retain, or use unpublished manuscript content, data, interpretations, or ideas for personal, professional, or financial advantage.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own work without the authors’ express written consent.

Reviewers should not retain manuscript files for personal use and should delete or destroy copies of the manuscript and related materials after completing the review, subject to the journal’s systems and recordkeeping needs.

Reviewers must not involve another person in the review of a manuscript without prior permission from the Editor; if such permission is granted, the reviewer must ensure that confidentiality is maintained.

Use of artificial intelligence

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or related review materials to generative AI systems or other external AI tools where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Generative AI must not be used to generate the substantive scientific assessment or replace the reviewer’s independent judgment. Limited use for language editing, grammar, clarity, or organization of a reviewer-written report is permitted, provided that no confidential manuscript content is disclosed to an external system, the reviewer verifies the final text, remains fully responsible for the review, and discloses such use to the Editor where required by journal policy.

Any limited AI-assisted use expressly permitted by the journal must be disclosed to the Editor, and the reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of the review.

Reviewer selection and independence

Reviewers are selected by the editor-in-chief or handling editor on the basis of being knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript and independence.

Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their judgment; the journal avoids selecting reviewers with obvious competing interests, including reviewers from the same institution as any of the authors.

The journal also seeks to avoid selecting reviewers who have recent joint publications or other close collaborative relationships with any of the authors.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to complete the journal’s structured review form and provide comments for the authors and, where appropriate, confidential comments to the Editor.

The review form is intentionally brief and combines structured assessment with narrative comments. Reviewers should briefly summarize the manuscript, comment on its principal merits, identify any major issues that materially affect its validity, interpretation, reporting, or overall suitability, and provide minor comments or optional suggestions separately where relevant. If no major issues are identified, this should be stated explicitly.

Confidential comments to the Editor should be reserved for matters that should not be communicated directly to the authors, such as concerns about research or publication ethics, possible misconduct, substantial overlap, or conflicts of interest. Substantive criticisms that the authors should have an opportunity to address should not be raised only in the confidential comments.

Review timeline

The journal aims to complete the first round of independent peer review within approximately 4 weeks after a manuscript is sent for review. This timeframe is indicative only and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the submission, and whether additional review is needed.