• Relevance to the journal and clarity of the research purpose.
• Originality, significance, and engagement with relevant scholarship.
• Suitability and explanation of methods or the scholarly approach.
• Adequacy of evidence, analysis, and interpretation.
• Support for conclusions and recognition of limitations.
• Clarity of organisation, tables, figures, and references.
• Relevant ethical, reporting, and research-integrity concerns.

Apply criteria appropriate to the work. Do not impose experimental or quantitative conventions on research for which a different disciplinary approach is justified.

1. Briefly summarise the manuscript’s purpose and contribution.
2. Identify major strengths and substantive issues, explaining their implications.
3. Separate essential revisions from optional suggestions. Number comments and identify relevant sections or passages.
4. Provide a justified recommendation using the journal’s available review options.
5. Identify limits to the assessment and any need for additional specialist review.

Use the designated author-facing and confidential editor-facing fields. Substantive criticism needed for revision should normally be explained to authors; sensitive integrity concerns may be raised privately.

Critique the work rather than the authors. Avoid discriminatory remarks, personal attacks, unsupported accusations, and demands unrelated to the manuscript’s purpose. Language comments should help communication rather than penalise authors for linguistic background.

Recommend additional citations only when relevant and explain their value. Do not require citations to increase personal, institutional, or journal metrics. A reviewer’s preferred interpretation is not, by itself, grounds for rejecting a defensible alternative.

Report suspected plagiarism, data problems, or other integrity concerns to the editor with supporting details. Do not contact authors, institutions, or third parties to conduct an independent investigation on the journal’s behalf.

Submit the report through the designated review system by the agreed date. Notify the handling editor promptly if completion is no longer possible. Disclose any new conflict or recognition of author identity.

Reviews must reflect the reviewer’s own assessment. Delegation, consultation, and use of external tools are governed by Confidentiality and the AI Usage Policy. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; Decision Process defines editorial authority.