Review Forms
To ensure consistency and clarity, reviewers will be provided with a structured review form. The form will include the following sections:
1. Summary of the Manuscript
A brief overview of the manuscript's purpose, methods, and key insights.
2. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers will rate and comment on:
- –Originality and contribution to knowledge
- –Alignment with journal scope
- –Quality of theoretical framing
- –Methodological rigour and transparency
- –Depth and accuracy of analysis
- –Relevance and soundness of conclusions
- –Use of relevant literature
- –Writing clarity and organization
- –Ethical considerations
3. Strengths of the Manuscript
A dedicated space for reviewers to highlight strong elements that should be retained or amplified.
4. Areas for Improvement
Specific, actionable suggestions that help authors revise their work. These may include conceptual reframing, methodological clarification, deeper analysis, restructuring sections, or enriching literature.
5. Confidential Comments to the Editor
Reviewers may provide insights or concerns intended only for the editorial team (e.g., suspected plagiarism, methodological red flags).
6. Recommendation
Reviewers select a recommendation:
- –Accept
- –Minor Revision
- –Major Revision
- –Reject
Templates may differ slightly based on article type (research, practice-based, or policy analysis).