Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for considering a review for us and for giving your time. The work of our reviewers is the foundation of the journal’s quality. The notes below are meant to make the review process easier for you.

Responding to an invitation

We would be grateful for a response to the invitation within 3 days, so that, if needed, we can contact another reviewer without delay. It is best to decline the invitation if the topic is outside your expertise, if you think you know the authors’ identity, if you work at the same institution as an author, if you are an author’s thesis supervisor or student, or if you have co-authored with or had a close personal relationship with an author in the last three years. Suggesting a suitable alternative reviewer is very helpful to the editor.

Timeline

The deadline for the first review is 20 days; a reminder is sent before the deadline. The deadline for reviewing a revised manuscript is 2 weeks. If you need more time, just let the editor know; we are happy to extend the deadline.

Confidentiality

As the manuscript you review is unpublished, it is confidential. We kindly ask you not to share or cite it, or use it in your own work before publication. For the same reason, please do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to artificial intelligence tools or generate your report with artificial intelligence. If you use a tool only to polish the language of your report, without sharing any information from the manuscript, please tell the editor.

Evaluation criteria

  • Clarity of the research question and its contribution; currency and adequacy of the literature review
  • Fit of the method or approach with the research question (quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods; archival and documentary research; field research; art and design research; theoretical study)
  • Reliability of the sources and data; accurate and complete citation of primary sources, archival documents and works of art
  • In quantitative studies, evidence of the validity and reliability of the measures and appropriateness of the statistical analyses; in qualitative studies, transparency of data collection and analysis
  • Whether the findings and interpretations follow from the data and sources; open discussion of limitations
  • Statement of ethics approval, informed consent and the necessary permissions (from institutions and archives, and for the use of images and works)
  • Quality of the images (photographs of works, maps, drawings, tables) and citation of their sources
  • Compliance of the referencing with APA 7 (formatting is done with the template at the revision stage)
  • Whether the title and abstract accurately reflect the content (in a revised manuscript, also the Extended Abstract)

Writing the report

  • Opening with a two- or three-sentence summary of the manuscript helps the authors see how their work was read.
  • Listing major and minor issues under separate headings makes the report easier to follow.
  • It is most helpful to pair each criticism with a concrete suggestion the authors can act on.
  • A general note on language is enough; there is no need to list every typo.
  • Keeping criticism focused on the work rather than the person helps the authors read the report as a constructive contribution.
  • We kindly ask that suggested references be limited to those genuinely necessary; citation of your own work or of the journal should not be made a condition.

Ethical concerns

If you notice plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publication, missing ethics approval or any other ethical problem, please report it to the editor in your confidential comments. To protect the anonymity of the review, we ask you not to investigate the matter yourself or contact the authors; the editor will look into it.

Review form and recommendation

Reviews are submitted through the online Reviewer Evaluation Form in the journal system. The form covers the evaluation criteria, comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor. You can give your recommendation as one of the following: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject.

Acknowledgement

Reviewers receive a certificate of reviewing on request. At the end of each year, the names and institutions of the reviewers who served that year are published on the journal website.