Reviewer Guidelines

· Reviewers must treat manuscripts as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or utilise any part of the unpublished research for their own benefit or the benefit of others.

· Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors, or a financial interest in the research, that could bias the evaluation.

· Reviewers must alert the Editor immediately if they suspect plagiarism, "AIgiarism" (undisclosed AI-generated content), or data fabrication within a manuscript.

· Even if a manuscript is recommended for rejection, feedback should be professional, constructive, and aimed at helping the authors improve their future scholarship.

· Provide a numbered list of specific revisions. For example, instead of stating "the methodology is weak," specify exactly why it is insufficient and how the authors can rectify it.

· Verify that the manuscript adheres to British English standards and follows the journal’s formatting requirements, including the provision of DOI links for all references.

· The peer-review process is critical to academic momentum. Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within the agreed timeframe (typically 4–8 weeks). If an extension is required, notification should be sent to the Editorial Office as soon as possible.