Notes for reviewers

The primary purpose of the review process is to ensure that papers accepted for publication by the journal meet the highest academic standards of clarity, rigour and replicability. A secondary purpose of the review process is to provide constructive feedback for authors whose papers fall short of this mark.

The general expectation is that all reviewer feedback will be passed on, in an anonymised form, to the submitting author(s). Reviewers are therefore asked to ensure that their comments are suitably constructive, and to highlight any comments that they would prefer remained confidential to the editor.

In providing feedback on a paper, reviewers are asked make a clear overall recommendation (publish; publish subject to minor revision; publish subject to major revision; revise and resubmit; reject). This recommendation should be followed by a justification for the recommendation made, including at least brief reference to each of:

• Originality
• Validity of methods, results and interpretations
• Relevance to journal readership
• Clarity and structure of narrative
• Quality and appropriateness of any tables or figures

If revision prior to publication or resubmission is recommended, reviewers are asked to provide a list of points that the submitting author(s) should be asked to address.

In order to allow for timely publication, reviewers are asked to provide comments on submitted items within the agreed review deadline (normally four weeks after receipt of item).

Use of Generative AI in Peer Review and Peer Review Confidentiality

Reviewers may use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in a supporting role during the peer-review process, provided that their use does not compromise the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and does not replace the reviewer's own expert judgement.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, reasoning and recommendations contained in their review. Generative AI must not be used as a substitute for critically reading the manuscript, assessing its methods and findings, or forming an independent scientific judgement.

To avoid a breach of confidentiality and intellectual property rights, reviewers must not upload or otherwise provide the manuscript, substantial extracts from it, tables, figures, data, supplementary material, or other confidential information to publicly accessible AI systems or to services that may retain, reuse or use such material for model training.

Subject to these confidentiality requirements, AI tools may be used for supporting tasks such as:

• Improving the clarity, structure, grammar or style of a review written by the reviewer
• Translating text written by the reviewer
• Relevance to journal readership
• Assisting with literature searches or identifying potentially relevant references
• Helping the reviewer organise or formulate comments based on their own assessment of the manuscript

Reviewers must independently verify any information, references or claims produced by AI tools. In particular, AI-generated references should not be relied upon without checking the original sources.

Where generative AI has been used substantively in preparing a review, beyond routine spelling, grammar or language correction, reviewers should disclose this use to the Editor when submitting their report, briefly indicating how the tool was used.

The Editor may disregard a review, or take other appropriate action, where the use of AI appears to have compromised manuscript confidentiality or replaced the independent scholarly assessment expected of a reviewer.