Reviewers are voluntary contributors to the system of scholarly communication who play a vital role in validating research and enhancing the quality of content published in the journal. As the journal adheres to the regulations and policies of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org), reviewers are expected to comply with the highest ethical and professional standards.

Ethical Duties and Impartiality

• a) Confidentiality and Trust

• Confidential treatment:

Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.

• Non‑disclosure:

Reviewers must not share any details of the review process, manuscript content, or related information with others, nor may they contact authors directly without the explicit permission of the Editor‑in‑Chief.

• No misuse of information:

Unpublished information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage or incorporated into the reviewer’s own research.

• Confidentiality breaches via artificial intelligence:

Uploading all or any part of a submitted manuscript into generative artificial intelligence tools or large language models (e.g., ChatGPT) is strictly prohibited. Such actions violate authors’ intellectual property rights, data privacy, and the confidentiality of unpublished work.

 

• b) Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must maintain objectivity and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest without delay.

• Disclosure:

If a reviewer believes that a conflict of interest exists—such as recent collaboration with the author(s) (within the past three years), employment at the same institution, or financial ties to the research—they must inform the Editor‑in‑Chief before accepting the review invitation.

• Recusal:

If a potential bias is identified, the reviewer should consult with the Editor‑in‑Chief to determine whether withdrawal from the review is necessary to preserve impartiality.

• Citation manipulation:

Reviewers should not recommend citations to their own work or that of close colleagues unless there is a genuine and well‑justified scholarly reason. Requests for unnecessary citations intended to artificially inflate metrics constitute unethical behavior.

 

• c) Professional Conduct of Reviewers

• Reviews must be conducted in an objective, constructive, and scholarly manner.
• Avoidance of personal criticism:

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should maintain a respectful and professional tone, presenting their comments clearly and supported by reasoned arguments.

• Ethical vigilance:

Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, redundant publication, or substantial similarity to previously published works and report any concerns to the Editor‑in‑Chief.

• Timeliness and competence:

Reviewers should accept review invitations only if they possess relevant expertise and are confident that they can complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

 

• Content of the Review Report

The review report serves two primary purposes:

(1) to assist the Editor‑in‑Chief in making an informed editorial decision, and

(2) to help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.

All comments should be well‑reasoned, detailed, and, where appropriate, supported by references to reputable scholarly sources. For guidance on preparing effective review reports, reviewers may consult:

https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.231

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

 

• a) Originality and Significance
• Does the manuscript present novel research or make a substantial contribution to existing knowledge in the field?
• Is the research question important and relevant to the journal’s scope?
• If the findings or conclusions lack originality, reviewers should cite relevant prior literature.
•  
• b) Methodology and Data

• Is the research design appropriate for addressing the stated research question?
• Is the methodology described in sufficient detail to allow replication by other researchers?
• Are the materials, sources, or instruments adequately described?
• Reviewers should assess the soundness of the approach, data quality, and proper use of statistical analyses.(Statistical errors are common and require careful scrutiny.)

 

• c) Clarity and Structure

• Is the language clear, precise, and concise?
• Does the abstract accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
• Does the introduction clearly articulate the research question and its context?
• If linguistic weaknesses significantly hinder comprehension, reviewers should report this issue to the Editor‑in‑Chief.(Language editing is not the reviewer’s responsibility.)

 

• d) Results and Conclusions

• Are the findings presented clearly and coherently?
• Are the claims reasonable and adequately supported by the results?
• Do the conclusions logically integrate the various components of the manuscript?
• Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?

 

• e) Tables and Figures

• Are all tables and figures useful, informative, and accurate in representing the data?
• Are they presented consistently and integrated effectively throughout the manuscript?

 

• f) Research Implications

• Does the manuscript help bridge the gap between theory and practice?
• What economic, commercial, educational, public policy, or social implications arise from the research findings?

 

• Permissible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

While uploading authors’ manuscripts into AI tools is strictly prohibited due to confidentiality concerns, reviewers may use such tools solely to improve their own review reports.

• Permitted use (editing support):

Reviewers may use generative AI tools or large language models to improve the structure, linguistic clarity, grammar, or readability of their review reports.

• Mandatory disclosure:

Any use of AI tools for this purpose must be fully and transparently disclosed to the editorial team.

• Accountability:

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, rigor, and integrity of the entire review report.

Artificial intelligence can never replace human expertise and critical judgment, which are essential for scholarly evaluation.

• Submission of the Review Report

Upon completion of the evaluation, reviewers are required to submit one of the following recommendations to the Editor‑in‑Chief:

• Accept:

The manuscript is ready for publication without the need for any revisions.

• Minor Revision:

The manuscript is acceptable subject to minor revisions.

• Major Revision:

The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial revisions and re‑evaluation.

• Reject:

The manuscript suffers from fundamental weaknesses and is not suitable for publication.

 

• Modes of Submitting Reviewer Comments

Reviewers may communicate their comments and recommendations to the Editor‑in‑Chief through any of the following methods:

• Entering their comments directly into the designated review form within the submission system;
• Uploading a separate review report file (Word or PDF) as an attachment to the evaluation form;
• Adding comments directly to the submitted Word manuscript using the “Comment” or “Track Changes” features.

 

• Editorial Recommendation

The journal strongly encourages reviewers to prepare detailed and comprehensive review reports whenever possible. A thorough report enables:

• the Editor‑in‑Chief to make a well‑informed and fair editorial decision, and
• the authors to substantially improve the quality of their manuscript in response to expert feedback.

Concise but well‑reasoned, constructive, and clearly articulated comments are highly valued and contribute directly to the integrity and effectiveness of the peer review process.