Scholarly Summit values the contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and reliability of scholarly research. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, independent, confidential, and constructive assessments in accordance with the relevant journal's peer-review policy.
Reviewers should accept invitations only when the manuscript falls within their expertise and they can complete the review within the agreed timeframe. If additional expertise is needed or a deadline cannot be met, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.
Manuscripts and associated review materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals or use unpublished information for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to external tools or services, including artificial intelligence systems, without the journal's prior authorization and appropriate safeguards.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including financial, personal, professional, or collaborative relationships that could affect their impartiality.
If a conflict could compromise an independent assessment, reviewers should notify the editorial office and decline the invitation where appropriate.
Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and respectful. Reviewers should assess the manuscript's scholarly contribution and provide specific, constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work.
Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations are inappropriate. Reviewers should explain their concerns clearly and distinguish major issues from minor recommendations.
Depending on the article type and discipline, reviewers should consider:
Reviewers should identify relevant omitted literature when justified, but must not request unnecessary citations or citations intended primarily to increase their own or others' citation counts.
Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection in accordance with the journal's review form and procedures. Recommendations should be supported by clear reasons.
The final editorial decision rests with the authorized editor, not the reviewer. Confidential comments to the editor may be used to raise relevant ethical or editorial concerns and should be consistent with the review's overall assessment.
Reviewers should not contact authors directly about a manuscript unless authorized by the editorial office.
If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, ethical concerns, or substantial overlap with other work, they should confidentially inform the editorial office and provide supporting details where possible. Reviewers should avoid making unsupported accusations.
Scholarly Summit may recognize reviewers for their contributions through certificates or other forms of acknowledgment, subject to journal policy. Any fee discount, waiver, or invitation to join an editorial board is subject to separate eligibility criteria and approval. Such benefits do not influence editorial decisions or review recommendations.