Instructions and Duties of Reviewers

Instructions and Duties of Reviewers

Peer review supports fair editorial decisions and helps authors improve their work. Reviewers act as independent advisers to the editor. The final decision belongs to the editor, not the reviewer.

Download Reviewer Form

• Accept only appropriate assignments. Accept only when you have sufficient subject or methodological expertise and can complete a careful review by the deadline. Decline promptly where this is not possible.
• Declare conflicts before access. Disclose any financial, professional, collaborative, supervisory, competitive, personal, ideological or institutional relationship that could affect, or be perceived to affect, impartiality. When uncertain, ask the editor.
• Preserve confidentiality. Treat the manuscript, data, supplementary material, correspondence and review as confidential. Do not share, copy, retain, use or discuss them except with editorial permission.
• Do not delegate without permission. Do not pass the manuscript to a colleague, student or junior researcher. A co-reviewer may participate only with prior editor approval, must be named, must accept the same duties and should receive appropriate recognition.
• Do not use unauthorised AI. Do not upload any manuscript or review content to public or unauthorised AI services. If the journal authorises a secure tool, disclose its use and remain fully responsible for the report.
• Review objectively and respectfully. Assess the work, not the authors. Avoid personal remarks, hostile language, stereotypes and unsupported assertions. Explain concerns and, where feasible, suggest a path to correction.
• Evaluate evidence and contribution. Consider scope, originality, research question, literature/context, methodology, data/analysis, results, interpretation, limitations, reproducibility, policy/practice relevance and clarity.
• Check ethics and transparency. Consider whether ethics approval, consent, conflicts, funding, data availability, reporting standards, AI disclosures and permissions are adequate. Raise suspected misconduct confidentially with the editor rather than accusing the authors directly.
• Protect citation integrity. Recommend citations only where they are genuinely necessary for accuracy, balance or context. Do not request citation of your own work, associates' work or Planning Malaysia merely to increase citations. Identify each proposed reference and explain its scholarly relevance.
• Distinguish essential and optional changes. Clearly separate changes required for validity or interpretation from optional suggestions or stylistic preferences. Do not demand a different study than the one submitted unless the present design cannot answer its stated question.
• Support recommendations. Provide clear comments to authors and, where necessary, confidential comments to the editor. Your recommendation must follow from the reasons given; do not use predicted citation performance, author location or institutional prestige as criteria.
• Report overlap or manipulation. Alert the editor confidentially to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, fake reviewer activity or other integrity concerns, with evidence where possible.
• Complete and delete. Submit the review through OJS, respond promptly to follow-up questions, and securely delete local files after the review is complete unless the journal instructs otherwise.

8.1 Recommended structure of the review report

1. Brief summary: State the manuscript's purpose and contribution in your own words.
2. Overall assessment: Identify the principal strengths and the main issue(s) affecting validity, interpretation or suitability.
3. Major comments: Number the essential scholarly, methodological, ethical or analytical points and explain what evidence or clarification is needed.
4. Minor comments: List limited corrections concerning clarity, presentation, definitions, references, tables or figures.
5. Confidential comments to the editor: Use only for conflicts, integrity concerns, reviewer-identity issues or information inappropriate for the author-facing report. Do not contradict the author comments without explanation.
6. Recommendation: Select Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject and Invite New Submission, or Reject. The editor may reach a different decision.

8.2 Reviewer declaration