Submit your review

Reviewer’s e-mail address *

Reviewer’s name *

Institution / Affiliation *

Title of the manuscript *

Reviewer Declaration *

I confirm that I have read and accepted the Journal’s Editorial Standards applicable to reviewers, that I have no conflict of interest in reviewing this manuscript, that I will treat the manuscript and the review process as confidential, and that I will not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools in any way that would compromise confidentiality or independent scholarly judgment.

Conflict of Interest *

Do you have any conflict of interest that may affect, or may reasonably appear to affect, your impartiality in reviewing this manuscript?

If yes, please provide details:

Please describe the relevant conflict of interest.

AI Use in Review *

Will you use any generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the preparation of this review?

If yes, please provide details:

Please note that the use of AI tools must not compromise confidentiality, data protection, or independent scholarly judgment.

1. Relevance and quality of the topic

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

2. Clarity of the research problem / problem statement

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

3. Appropriateness of the scientific methods

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

4. Soundness of the methodology

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

5. Engagement with the relevant scholarly discourse

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

6. Scholarly contribution / scientific contribution

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

7. Use of the relevant literature

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

8. Critical use of sources

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

9. Referencing and citation system

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

10. Consistency between title and content

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

11. Structure and organization

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

12. Language and style

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

13. Use of tables, figures, and illustrations

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

14. Overall quality of the conclusions

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

15. Recommendation to the Editorial Board

Rating with numbers *

1 (very poor)
2 (poor)
3 (satisfactory)
4 (good)
5 (excellent)

Comments, observations, and suggestions

Enter the security code:

Topics

Current issue