Guidelines for Reviewer

Reviewers help the editor decide whether a manuscript is sound, original, and relevant, and help authors improve it; reports are due within four weeks of accepting an invitation.

Before accepting

•           Accept only if the manuscript is within your expertise and you can meet the deadline.

•           Decline if you have a conflict of interest (see Conflict of Interest).

While reviewing

•           Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share it, contact the authors or use its content for your own work.

•           Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools; doing so breaches confidentiality.

•           Be objective and courteous. Criticise the work, never the authors.

What to assess

Criterion	Questions to ask
Relevance	Does it fit the IJoSPaT scope and address a real sustainability, policy or technology problem?
Originality	Is the research gap clear, and does the paper add something new?
Literature	Is the review current (mostly from the last 5–10 years) and critical, not just descriptive?
Method	Is the design appropriate and described well enough to be replicated? Are data and samples adequate?
Results	Are the analyses correct and the results clearly presented in tables and figures?
Discussion	Are the findings interpreted against prior studies and theory?
Implications	Are the theoretical, practical and policy implications stated and supported?
Ethics	Any signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication or missing ethics approval?
Presentation	Is the English clear, and are references in APA 7th style?

The report.
Use the OJS review form. Give a short summary of the paper, its main strengths, major issues, minor issues, and a recommendation (Accept, Minor revision, Major revision or Reject). Put confidential remarks for the editor only in the “For editor” field.

Suspected misconduct.
Report it confidentially to the editor; do not investigate or confront the authors yourself.