Reviewers Guidelines

Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scholarly integrity and quality of Subulana. The following guidelines are provided to assist reviewers in completing their evaluations in a manner consistent with the journal's ethical and academic standards.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or any information contained therein to any third party without prior written permission from the editor. The existence of the review process itself should not be disclosed.

Objectivity and Constructive Critique

Reviews must be conducted objectively, with the sole aim of improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript and assisting the editors in reaching a sound decision. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Feedback should be specific, evidence-based, and framed in a constructive manner that allows authors to meaningfully improve their work.

Timeliness

Reviewers who have agreed to evaluate a manuscript are expected to submit their report within the agreed timeframe, ordinarily four weeks from the date of invitation. If a reviewer is unable to meet this deadline, they should notify the editorial office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have a personal, financial, or professional conflict of interest. This includes manuscripts authored by current collaborators, direct competitors, close colleagues, or former supervisees. If a conflict of interest becomes apparent after review has begun, the reviewer must notify the editorial office immediately.

Detection of Misconduct

Reviewers who identify substantial similarity between a manuscript under review and any other published or unpublished work are obligated to notify the editor. Reviewers who suspect that data, results, or conclusions in the manuscript may have been fabricated or misrepresented should also report their concerns to the editor.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria: originality and contribution to the field; soundness of the theoretical framework; rigor of the research methodology; coherence and depth of the analysis; accuracy of the conclusions; quality and appropriateness of the literature cited; and clarity of writing and adherence to academic conventions.