Reviewer Guidelines

The reviewer’s role

Peer review is what separates a scholarly journal from a website that publishes documents. As a reviewer for BORJSS you are asked to judge whether a manuscript is sound, and to help the authors improve it — whatever the eventual decision.

You are not asked to decide whether the paper is published. That decision rests with the handling editor and the Editor-in-Chief, who weigh your report alongside at least one other. Your job is to give them an informed, reasoned assessment.

Accepting or declining an invitation

Please respond to an invitation within five days, even if you decline. A prompt decline is far more useful than a slow acceptance — it lets the editor approach someone else without losing a fortnight.

Decline if:

• The manuscript is outside your expertise. Reviewing something you cannot properly judge helps nobody.
• You cannot complete the review within three weeks.
• You have a competing interest — recent collaboration, institutional connection, a personal relationship, or a competing manuscript of your own on the same question. See the conflict of interest policy.

When declining, suggesting an alternative reviewer is genuinely helpful and always appreciated.

What to assess

The review form asks for a rating and comments against each of the following. You do not need to address every question, but a report that touches on all six areas is far more useful than one that dwells on a single concern.

Writing the report

The most valuable reports are specific, ordered by importance, and written in language the authors can act on. A structure that works well:

1. Summary. Two or three sentences describing what the paper does, in your own words. This shows the authors how their work was understood — and occasionally reveals that it was not.
2. Major issues. Numbered, in order of importance. Anything that must be addressed before publication. Say what is wrong and, where you can, what would fix it.
3. Minor issues. Numbered, referencing page and line. Clarifications, missing detail, presentation.
4. Confidential comments to the editor. Anything you would not put to the authors — suspicion of misconduct, or a candid note on how far the work is from publishable.

Some practical points:

• Cite line numbers. “The sampling strategy at lines 145–160 does not explain how non-responders were handled” is actionable; “the methodology is weak” is not.
• Distinguish requirement from preference. Say clearly which comments must be addressed and which are suggestions the authors may reasonably decline.
• Do not demand citations to your own work unless it is genuinely essential to the argument. Coercive citation is a serious breach of reviewer ethics.
• Criticise the work, not the authors. Write as though the report will be read by a nervous doctoral student — because sometimes it is.
• Do not copy-edit. Flag that language needs attention; the journal handles copy-editing after acceptance.

Recommendations

Choose the option closest to your judgement. If your written comments and your recommendation point in different directions, the editor will follow the comments — so make sure they agree.

Reviewer ethics

Reviewing gives you early sight of unpublished work. That access carries obligations, set out in full in the reviewer ethics policy. In short:

• Confidentiality. The manuscript is a privileged document. Do not share it, discuss it, or cite it. Do not retain a copy after the review is submitted.
• No use of the material. You may not use ideas, data or findings from a manuscript under review to advance your own work.
• No AI tools. Do not paste any part of a manuscript into a generative AI service. Doing so uploads confidential unpublished work to a third party, and is treated as a breach of confidentiality.
• Declare competing interests as soon as you become aware of one, including partway through a review.
• Report suspected misconduct — plagiarism, duplicate submission, manipulated images or implausible data — to the editor privately rather than raising it with the authors.

Timeline

If circumstances change and you cannot finish, tell the editorial office as early as you can. An honest withdrawal is always better than a review that never arrives.

Recognition

Reviewing is unpaid academic service, but it is not invisible. Reviewers for BORJSS receive:

• A formal acknowledgement letter for institutional records.
• The option to have reviews recognised on your ORCID record, if you choose.
• Inclusion in the annual reviewer acknowledgement published with the final issue of each volume, unless you prefer not to be named.
• Consideration for the editorial board — most board members began as reviewers.