For Reviewers

Purpose of a review

A review helps the editor assess a manuscript and helps authors improve it. Evaluate the work presented, rather than requiring it to become a different study. Distinguish concerns that affect validity from suggestions that improve presentation.

Before accepting an invitation

Read the title, abstract and requested deadline. Accept only if you have relevant expertise and sufficient time. Tell the editor which parts are outside your competence. Decline or request guidance if you have a recent collaboration, supervisory relationship, close personal relationship, direct competition, financial interest or other connection that could affect impartiality. Do not transfer the invitation to a colleague; suggest alternatives to the editor instead.

Confidentiality and responsible assistance

Treat manuscripts, data, identities and editorial correspondence as confidential during and after review. Do not contact authors directly, use unpublished ideas for your own advantage or share the manuscript without editorial permission. Obtain permission before involving a trainee or co-reviewer and disclose their contribution. Do not upload confidential text or files to public AI systems or other external services. You remain responsible for any permitted assistance.

First reading

Identify the research question, claimed contribution, article type and main conclusion. Check whether the abstract accurately reflects the manuscript and whether the question fits the journal. Note major concerns before focusing on language or formatting. Assess the work fairly across disciplines and research traditions.

Research and evidence

For quantitative studies, examine sampling, measures, identification assumptions, missing data, analytical choices, uncertainty and whether causal claims are warranted. For qualitative studies, assess case or participant selection, context, data collection, coding or interpretation, reflexivity and the connection between evidence and claims. For humanities work, assess the handling of texts, archives, provenance, context, alternative interpretations and the coherence of the argument. Do not impose an inappropriate methodological checklist on a different disciplinary approach.

Reviews and other article types

For reviews, examine the selection strategy, coverage, synthesis and treatment of conflicting evidence; systematic reviews need a reproducible account of their search and screening. For theoretical papers, assess definitions, internal consistency and explanatory value. For data and methods papers, assess documentation, validation and practical reuse. Judge case studies and short notes against their stated scope rather than the scale of a full empirical article.

Interpretation and reporting

Check that results support the conclusions, limitations are acknowledged and generalisations are justified. Identify omitted relevant scholarship without requiring unnecessary citations to your own work. Ask for additional analysis only when it is necessary to evaluate the claims. Separate essential work from optional future research. Evaluate clarity without penalising authors simply because English is not their first language.

Ethics and integrity concerns

Check relevant ethics review, consent, confidentiality, permissions, funding, competing interests and data statements. Report suspected plagiarism, image manipulation, fabricated evidence or undisclosed overlap confidentially to the editor with specific supporting information. Do not accuse authors in the public-facing report or conduct an independent investigation that exposes confidential material.

How to organise your report

Begin with a short neutral summary of the question and contribution. Explain the principal strengths. Present numbered major comments, each with the location, concern, reason it matters and a feasible request. Follow with minor comments on clarity, references or presentation. Avoid personal remarks, demands for irrelevant citations and acceptance promises. Keep your recommendation consistent with the evidence in the report.

Recommendations

Recommend acceptance when the paper is ready; minor revision for limited changes that do not alter the main assessment; major revision when substantial but feasible work is needed; or rejection when fundamental problems, insufficient contribution or a clear scope mismatch cannot reasonably be resolved. Explain which issues are decisive. Recommendations advise the editor and are not a vote or final decision.

Confidential comments and revisions

Use confidential comments for conflicts, integrity concerns or matters unsuitable for the author report. Do not hide ordinary scientific criticism from the authors. On a revised paper, compare the response letter and changes with the original concerns. Explain remaining issues and avoid introducing new requirements unless revisions reveal a material problem.

Deadlines and recognition

Agree the deadline with the editor and request an extension as soon as a delay becomes likely. No fixed review or decision time is guaranteed. Review identities and reports are not made public without an agreed policy and any necessary consent. Reviewer recognition and certificates are not currently offered as an automated service.

Interface language

Select English or 简体中文 using the interface language selector in the review system. This changes menus and controls only; it does not translate or modify the manuscript or your report. Submit the review in English unless another language has been agreed with the handling editor.