Reviewers are volunteer pillars of the scientific communication system who help improve the quality of content published in the journal by validating research. Since this journal adheres to the codes and policies of COPE (https://publicationethics.org), reviewers are expected to uphold ethical and professional standards.
- Ethical Duties and Impartiality
- a) Confidentiality and Trust
Manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Non‑sharing: Reviewers must not share review details, the manuscript text, or related information with others, nor contact the authors directly without the explicit permission of the Editor‑in‑Chief.
Non‑exploitation: Unpublished information or ideas obtained during the review process must not be used for personal gain or in the reviewer's own research.
Confidentiality Breach by AI: Uploading all or part of a submitted manuscript into generative AI tools or large language models (e.g., ChatGPT) is prohibited. Such action violates the authors' proprietary rights, data privacy, and the confidentiality of unpublished work.
- b) Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must maintain their impartiality and immediately declare any potential conflicts of interest.
Disclosure: If a reviewer believes a conflict of interest exists (e.g., collaboration with the authors within the last three years, employment at the same institution, or financial involvement with the research), they must inform the Editor‑in‑Chief before accepting the review invitation.
Recusal: If potential bias is identified, the reviewer should consult with the Editor‑in‑Chief as to whether recusal from the review is necessary to ensure impartiality.
Citation Manipulation: Reviewers must not suggest citations to their own or their colleagues' work unless there are genuine and well‑grounded scientific reasons. Requesting unnecessary citations to artificially boost metrics is unethical.
- c) Professional Ethics of Reviewers
Reviews must be conducted objectively and constructively.
Avoiding Personal Criticism: Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should act respectfully and professionally, expressing their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Ethical Alerts: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, overlapping publication, or significant similarity to already published works, and report these to the Editor‑in‑Chief.
Timeliness: Reviewers should only accept an invitation to review if they are experts in the field and are confident they can complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
- Content of the Review Report
The review report is prepared with two main goals: to assist the Editor‑in‑Chief in reaching a final decision and to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript. All comments must be reasoned, include precise details, and, where necessary, cite credible scientific sources (reading the content at this link may be helpful for preparing a review report: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.231).
Reviewers should evaluate the work based on the following criteria:
- a) Originality and Significance
Does the article present innovative research or significantly advance existing knowledge in the field?
Is the research question important and relevant to the journal's scope?
If the results and conclusions are not original, the reviewer should refer to similar sources.
- b) Methodology and Data
Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research question?
Is the methodology sufficiently detailed to allow other researchers to reproduce the study?
Are the equipment and materials properly described?
Reviewers should examine the validity of the approach, data quality, and the correct use of statistical analyses (statistical errors are common and require careful scrutiny by the reviewer).
- c) Clarity and Structure
Is the language of the manuscript clear and concise?
Does the abstract accurately reflect the manuscript's content?
Does the introduction clearly explain the research question and its context?
If language weaknesses hinder understanding of the manuscript's arguments, the reviewer should report this to the Editor‑in‑Chief (it is not the reviewer's task to edit the language of the manuscript).
- d) Findings and Conclusions
Are the findings clearly presented?
Are the claims reasonable and supported by the presented results?
Does the conclusion logically tie together the different parts of the manuscript?
Are the limitations of the research mentioned?
- e) Tables and Figures
Are all images and tables useful, informative, and correctly displaying the data?
Is their presentation consistent and coherent throughout the text?
- f) Implications of the Research
Does the article bridge the gap between theory and practice?
What are the economic, commercial, educational, public policy, or social implications of the research findings?
- Permitted Use of Generative AI in the Review Process
Although uploading authors' manuscripts into AI tools is strictly prohibited due to confidentiality concerns, reviewers are permitted to use such tools solely to improve their own review report.
Permitted Use (Editing): A reviewer may use generative AI tools or large language models to improve the structure, language clarity, grammar, or readability of their own review report.
Mandatory Disclosure: If any AI tool is used for this purpose, the reviewer must clearly disclose this fact to the editorial team.
Accountability: The reviewer remains fully responsible and accountable for the accuracy, rigor, and integrity of the entire review report. AI can never replace the human expertise and critical evaluation required for scientific judgment.
- Process for Submitting the Review Report
After completing the evaluation, reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations to the Editor‑in‑Chief:
Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication without any changes.
Minor Revision: The manuscript is acceptable with minor corrections.
Major Revision: The manuscript has potential for publication but requires substantial changes and another round of review.
Reject: The manuscript has fundamental flaws and is not suitable for publication.
Reviewers may write their comments in the designated box provided, attach them as a separate Word or PDF file along with the evaluation form, or add their comments directly onto the Word file of the submitted manuscript. The journal recommends writing as detailed a review report as possible, so that the Editor‑in‑Chief can make a well‑informed decision and authors can improve their work accordingly.