Peer Review

The journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To accomplish the double-blind review process, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity or the university that they represent.

Based on the following criteria, the reviewers assess if the paper may be accepted without revisions, with minor or major revisions, or if it should be rejected. The core of any review is an objective assessment of both the technical rigour and the novelty of the presented work.


        1. Clarity of thesis statement and declaration of purpose.
        2. The relevance of the theoretical discussion.
        3. The relevance and description of the empirical investigation.
        4. Reproducible methods of the research and results.
        5. Unambiguous and properly analysed data.
        6. Well-founded discussion/analysis.
        7. Data supported by conclusions.
        8. Originality of the work.
        9. Awareness of relevant research.
        10. Well-structured and logically coherent composition.

Reviewers’ responsibilities to authors

         1. To provide unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work together with the rationale for the stated opinion.
         2. To provide the peer review as soon as possible (within 21 days). Where this cannot be done, please contact the editorial board via the journal’s platform.
         3. To indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
         4. To avoid personal comments or criticism.
         5. To maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process by not sharing and discussing with third parties or disclosing information from the reviewed paper without permission from the editorial board.

Reviewers’ responsibilities to editors

        1. To alert the editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest (see ‘Ethical policy’ and ‘Conflicts of interest’) you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
        2. To determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
        3. To note any ethical concerns, such as the substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.

Reviewers’ responsibility to readers

        1. To ensure that positively reviewed papers meet the journal’s standards.
        2. To protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
        3. To be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.

Reviews can and should be critical, but reviewers are asked to keep in mind that dismissive language and personalised criticisms may be viewed as reflecting bias or ulterior motives on the part of the referee.

The journal’s editorial board handles the administrative aspects of the peer review process for contributed papers. All peer reviews must be submitted through the Peer Review System.

Reviewers are asked to prepare their reviews by using a template (see_).

Reviewer guidelines

The journal seeks to provide authors with clear feedback that will help to guide them as they improve their work. To help us do this, reviewers are asked (but not required) to prepare reviews using the template below. The idea is to link specific criticisms and suggestions to the specific points in the paper. Experience has shown that reviews prepared this way are clearer and they help understand your concerns better so that as specific and as helpful as possible decisions could be made.

Comments to authors

Summary. Please provide a general summary of the paper. The summary should be brief. Your thoughts on the level of advance that the paper provides and its importance/interest to the community would be helpful.

Critique. Please list the main points of the paper. For each point, indicate whether the data sufficiently support that point. If the point is not sufficiently supported, please indicate the kind of evidence that you feel is required and include any suggestions for specific experiments. If you feel that certain concerns are more crucial than others, it would be helpful to highlight them.

Other comments. Please comment on any other issues (technical, data presentation, textual changes) that are not necessarily linked to any of the specific points of the paper.