Guidelines for Reviewers
Practical Instructions for Conducting and Submitting a Peer Review
Peer reviewers play an essential role in supporting the scholarly quality, integrity, and reliability of manuscripts considered for publication by the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert”.
These Guidelines provide practical instructions for reviewers from receipt of a review invitation through completion and submission of the Journal’s Manuscript Review Form and, where applicable, reassessment of a revised manuscript.
The Guidelines should be read together with the Journal’s Review Ethics, which establishes the ethical standards and responsibilities applicable to reviewers, and the Peer Review Process, which governs the organisation of external double-blind peer review and editorial reassessment.
The Journal applies external double-blind peer review by two independent reviewers to scholarly manuscripts that successfully complete initial editorial assessment and remain under consideration for publication.
Reviewer reports and recommendations support editorial decision-making but do not constitute final editorial decisions. Except where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, final decisions to Accept, Revise, or Reject are made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Detailed Guidelines for Reviewers
1. Before Accepting a Review
Upon receiving a review invitation, the reviewer should first determine whether they are able to conduct the review appropriately.
Before accepting, the reviewer should consider:
- whether the manuscript falls sufficiently within their scholarly or methodological competence;
- whether they are able to provide an independent and objective assessment;
- whether they can reasonably complete the review within the timeframe communicated for the assignment;
- whether any known conflict of interest exists;
- whether any institutional, professional, collaborative, supervisory, financial, personal, or other relationship known to the reviewer could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality.
Because the Journal applies double-blind peer review, reviewers should not deliberately attempt to identify the authors.
If the reviewer nevertheless identifies or reasonably suspects the identity of an author and becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must promptly inform the Journal and must not continue the assessment unless the competent editorial authority determines that continued participation is appropriate.
If the reviewer considers themselves insufficiently qualified, unable to meet the applicable deadline, or unable to provide an independent assessment, the invitation should be declined promptly.
If the reviewer is uncertain whether a particular circumstance constitutes a relevant conflict of interest, the circumstance should be disclosed to the Journal.
2. Accessing the Manuscript and Review Materials
The review package provided by the Journal includes the anonymised manuscript, the Manuscript Review Form, manuscript and review identifiers, and the applicable review deadline.
Depending on the manuscript or review stage, the reviewer may also receive:
- tables, figures, or other manuscript components;
- supplementary materials made available for review;
- additional editorial instructions;
- materials associated with a revised manuscript where reassessment is requested.
The reviewer should verify that the supplied materials are sufficient to conduct the review and should use the manuscript identifier and review information provided by the Journal when corresponding with the Editorial Office.
If essential materials appear to be missing, inaccessible, corrupted, or insufficient for reliable assessment, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Office. Any additional materials or clarification required for the review are provided to the reviewer through the Editorial Office within the double-blind review process.
3. Confidentiality and Secure Handling
The manuscript and associated review materials are confidential.
Reviewers must not:
- disclose the manuscript or its contents to unauthorised persons;
- distribute, reproduce, publish, or otherwise make confidential manuscript material available outside the authorised peer-review process;
- discuss confidential manuscript content with third parties without prior authorisation from the Journal;
- use unpublished information, ideas, methods, data, findings, interpretations, or other manuscript content for their own or another person’s advantage;
A review invitation is personal to the invited reviewer.
The manuscript or substantive responsibility for the review must not be transferred to a colleague, research assistant, student, doctoral candidate, postdoctoral researcher, or other person without prior approval from the Journal.
Where another qualified person is authorised to participate, applicable confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, and reviewer-responsibility requirements remain in force, and the participation should be appropriately documented by the Journal.
Reviewers must also protect manuscript confidentiality when using generative AI, AI-assisted technologies, or other external automated services.
Confidential manuscript text, figures, tables, data, supplementary materials, or review correspondence must not be submitted to an external AI service in a manner inconsistent with the Journal’s applicable confidentiality requirements or Generative AI Policy.
Generative AI must not replace the reviewer’s own scholarly assessment.
The reviewer remains responsible for the content, reasoning, accuracy, and recommendation contained in the review submitted under their name.
4. Conducting an Objective Scholarly Assessment
The manuscript should be assessed objectively, constructively, and within the reviewer’s area of competence.
The reviewer should focus on scholarly considerations relevant to the manuscript, including, as applicable:
- consistency with the Journal’s scope;
- originality and scholarly contribution;
- clarity of the research problem or idea;
- engagement with relevant literature;
- adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
- appropriateness of the methodology;
- research design and analytical approach;
- adequacy of statistical procedures where applicable;
- presentation and interpretation of findings;
- relationship between the evidence and conclusions;
- clarity, structure, and scholarly presentation;
- adequacy of tables, figures, and other supporting elements;
- relevant research-integrity or publication-ethics considerations.
Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
Where the reviewer disagrees with a methodological choice, interpretation, theoretical position, or conclusion, the disagreement should be explained through scholarly reasoning.
A reviewer should distinguish between:
- issues materially affecting scholarly quality, reliability, or validity;
- matters requiring clarification or revision;
- optional suggestions concerning presentation, terminology, organisation, or style.
Where the reviewer is unable to assess a significant aspect of a multidisciplinary manuscript because it falls outside their expertise, that limitation should be communicated to the Journal.
5. Completing Section I — Rating
The Manuscript Review Form contains Section I — Rating, in which the reviewer evaluates the manuscript against structured criteria using:
- SD — Strongly Disagree
- D — Disagree
- A — Agree
- SA — Strongly Agree
The form also provides space for reviewer comments.
The reviewer should assess each applicable criterion carefully and ensure that the selected rating is consistent with the substance of the written comments.
The Manuscript Review Form evaluates:
- consistency of the manuscript subject with the purpose and scope of the Journal;
- contribution to the body of knowledge and potential relevance to Journal readers;
- clarity and concision of the problem or idea;
- connection of the manuscript with existing literature or scholarly discussion;
- development and relevance of the discussion;
- adequate and concise presentation of findings or ideas, including tables and figures where applicable;
- justification of conclusions and/or recommendations and their relationship to the introduction and/or literature review;
- significance of the conclusions and/or recommendations in relation to publication;
- clarity of the Abstract, compliance with English grammar rules, accuracy of spelling, and appropriate identification of keywords derived from the content of the scientific research text;
- appropriateness and clarity of the research methods;
- appropriateness of statistical procedures for the research paradigm, where applicable.
For the statistical-procedures criterion, the Manuscript Review Form permits the reviewer to indicate N/A where needed.
The structured rating should not be completed mechanically.
Where a rating identifies a material deficiency, the reviewer should explain the issue sufficiently in the comments so that the basis of the assessment is understandable.
6. Providing Constructive Comments
Written comments are a central component of the review.
The reviewer should provide clear, specific, and actionable feedback that identifies both strengths and areas requiring attention.
Comments should, where relevant:
- explain why a particular issue is important;
- identify the part of the manuscript concerned;
- indicate what clarification or revision would address the issue;
- distinguish essential revisions from optional improvements;
- explain the scholarly basis for significant criticism;
- avoid vague statements that do not assist the author or editor.
Where rejection is recommended, the reviewer should explain the scholarly reasons for that recommendation in sufficient detail to support editorial consideration.
Reviewer comments should remain professional and respectful.
An unsupported recommendation such as “Accept” or “Reject” without adequate scholarly reasoning should not be treated as a substitute for a substantive review.
7. Citation and Reference Recommendations
The reviewer should consider whether the manuscript appropriately engages with relevant published scholarship.
Where significant and genuinely relevant work appears to have been omitted, the reviewer may draw attention to that work.
Citation recommendations must serve legitimate scholarly purposes.
Reviewers must not request citations primarily to:
- increase citations to their own publications;
- increase citations to their institution;
- increase citations to the Journal;
- benefit another author or publication without scholarly justification;
- manipulate citation metrics.
A suggested reference should be relevant to the research question, methodology, theoretical framework, interpretation, or another substantive aspect of the manuscript.
Reviewers should not require authors to add citations merely because the reviewer would personally prefer a different bibliography.
8. Reporting Research-Integrity or Publication-Ethics Concerns
If a reviewer identifies a possible research-integrity or publication-ethics concern, the matter should be reported confidentially to the handling editor or Editorial Office.
Possible concerns may include:
- plagiarism or inappropriate textual or content overlap;
- fabrication or falsification;
- unreliable or manipulated data;
- duplicate or concurrent publication;
- inappropriate authorship practices;
- citation manipulation;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- ethical concerns affecting research participants, animals, or protected data;
- peer-review manipulation;
- inappropriate use of generative AI;
- other matters potentially affecting the reliability or integrity of the manuscript.
The reviewer should explain the concern and, where possible, identify the relevant part of the manuscript or supporting information.
The reviewer must not:
- independently investigate the author;
- contact the author about the allegation;
- contact the author’s institution;
- contact third parties concerning the allegation;
- treat suspicion as a confirmed finding of misconduct.
The Journal determines the appropriate subsequent procedure under its Publication Ethics and other applicable policies.
9. Completing Section II — Reviewer Recommendation
The Manuscript Review Form requires the reviewer to select ONE recommendation category and provide comments explaining the selection.
- Extremely strong; definitely accept for publication
- Strong; probably accept for publication after minor revisions
- Paper requires revisions before it can be considered for acceptance
- Paper requires substantial revisions before it can be considered
- Not acceptable for publication
These categories constitute Reviewer Recommendations only.
They record the reviewer’s scholarly assessment and recommendation concerning the manuscript and do not constitute final editorial decisions of the Journal.
The reviewer should select the category that most closely reflects the overall scholarly assessment and ensure that the recommendation is consistent with:
- the Section I ratings;
- the substantive reviewer comments;
- identified strengths and deficiencies;
- any revisions considered necessary.
The Journal’s principal editorial decisions are:
The extent of any required revision and the need for subsequent external reassessment are determined editorially in accordance with the Journal’s Peer Review Process.
Except where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, the final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
A final editorial decision may differ from an individual reviewer recommendation where the available scholarly information provides a sufficient basis for a different conclusion.
10. Completing Section III — Comments to the Author
Section III of the Manuscript Review Form is designated for Comments to the Author. Comments entered in this section should therefore be written in a form suitable for communication to the author within the double-blind editorial process.
The reviewer should:
- write clearly and constructively;
- identify significant strengths and weaknesses;
- explain substantive concerns;
- provide actionable recommendations where revision may resolve an issue;
- distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions where useful;
- avoid statements that could disclose the reviewer’s identity;
- avoid personal criticism or inappropriate language.
Comments to the Author should normally contain the scholarly reasoning necessary for the author to understand and respond to the review.
Potential allegations or confidential information that should not be communicated directly to the author should instead be reported to the editor through the appropriate confidential channel.
11. Completing Section IV — Confidential Comments to the Editor
Section IV of the Manuscript Review Form provides Confidential Comments to the Editor and is optional.
This section may be used where the reviewer needs to communicate information that is relevant to editorial consideration but should not be included in Comments to the Author.
Examples may include:
- a confidential conflict-of-interest concern;
- a research-integrity or publication-ethics concern;
- information relevant to the reviewer’s recommendation that requires confidential editorial handling;
- a limitation of reviewer expertise that materially affects interpretation of the assessment;
- another matter that reasonably requires communication directly to the editor.
Confidential Comments to the Editor should not be used:
- to make unsupported allegations;
- to include inappropriate personal comments about an author;
- to conceal substantive scholarly criticism that the author reasonably needs in order to respond to a revision request;
- to avoid explaining the basis of the reviewer’s recommendation.
Where an integrity concern is reported, the reviewer should provide sufficient information to allow the Journal to determine the appropriate next step without independently investigating the allegation.
12. Review Deadline and Requesting Additional Time
Each review assignment has an applicable return deadline communicated by the Journal.
The Manuscript Review Form specifies the date by which the completed review should be returned and asks the reviewer to inform the Journal if meeting that deadline will not be possible.
Reviewers should make reasonable efforts to complete the review within the communicated timeframe.
If additional time is required, the reviewer should notify the Editorial Office as soon as reasonably possible.
The Journal may:
- allow additional time;
- appoint another reviewer;
- take another appropriate editorial step.
The reviewer should not submit an incomplete or superficial assessment solely to meet the deadline.
At the same time, avoidable delay should not unnecessarily impede the editorial process.
These Guidelines do not establish a universal fixed review period.
13. Submitting the Completed Review
Before submission, the reviewer should confirm that:
- the applicable Section I ratings have been completed;
- explanatory comments have been provided where necessary;
- one Section II recommendation category has been selected;
- the recommendation is consistent with the reviewer’s substantive assessment;
- Comments to the Author have been completed where appropriate;
- Confidential Comments to the Editor have been included where necessary;
- the review does not disclose the reviewer’s identity;
- confidential manuscript information has not been improperly disclosed.
Completed review reports must be submitted through the Journal’s Online Review System:
The Manuscript Review Form likewise directs reviewers to return the completed review through the Journal’s online review workflow.
If technical difficulties prevent submission through the Online Review System, the reviewer should contact the Editorial Office rather than transmitting confidential materials through an unauthorised channel.
Submission of the reviewer report completes the current review assignment unless the Journal subsequently requests clarification or reassessment.
14. Reassessment of a Revised Manuscript
A reviewer may subsequently be invited to reassess a revised manuscript where substantive comments or recommendations require verification of implementation.
Where reassessment is requested, the reviewer should normally consider:
- the revised manuscript;
- the author’s response to the relevant reviewer comments;
- whether previously identified substantive issues have been adequately addressed;
- whether revisions have created new issues that materially affect the scholarly assessment.
The reviewer should focus on matters relevant to the reassessment and should not introduce entirely new requirements without scholarly justification.
Where a reviewer becomes unable to continue, develops a relevant conflict of interest, or can no longer provide an independent assessment, the Journal should be informed.
The decision as to whether a revised manuscript is returned to one or both original reviewers, reviewed by another independent reviewer, or reassessed editorially is governed by the Journal’s Peer Review Process.
Reviewer reassessment remains advisory and does not transfer final editorial authority to the reviewer.
Quick Review Workflow
From Review Invitation to Submission. This workflow provides a concise operational summary of the reviewer’s principal steps. It does not replace the Detailed Guidelines, Review Ethics, Peer Review Process, or the Manuscript Review Form.
Before Accepting a Review
Confirm appropriate expertise, ability to meet the assigned deadline, absence of a known relevant conflict of interest, and ability to provide an independent assessment.
Protect Confidentiality
Keep the manuscript and review materials confidential. Do not involve unauthorised third parties, misuse unpublished information, or submit confidential material to unauthorised external AI services.
Conduct an Objective Scholarly Assessment
Evaluate originality, relevance, scholarly contribution, methodology, evidence and results, conclusions, literature, clarity, and presentation using the structured criteria in the Manuscript Review Form.
Provide Constructive Comments
Identify strengths and weaknesses, explain substantive concerns clearly, and provide actionable recommendations. Keep criticism professional, evidence-based, and focused on the manuscript.
Check References and Integrity Concerns
Identify genuinely relevant missing scholarship where appropriate. Do not manipulate citations. Report possible integrity or publication-ethics concerns confidentially to the Journal and do not investigate them independently.
Complete the Manuscript Review Form
Complete Section I — Rating, Section II — Reviewer Recommendation, Section III — Comments to the Author, and Section IV — Confidential Comments to the Editor where needed.
Open Manuscript Review Form →Submit the Review
Submit the completed review through the Journal’s Online Review System within the timeframe specified for the assignment. If additional time is needed, inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.
Open Online Review System →Reassessment, if Requested
Review the revised manuscript and the author’s response, verify whether relevant substantive comments have been addressed, and report the reassessment to the Journal. The reassessment remains advisory.
The Quick Review Workflow is a visual operational summary. Where more detail is required, the corresponding section of the Detailed Guidelines and the Journal’s applicable Review Ethics and Peer Review Process should be consulted.