Guide for Reviewers

1. Purpose of This Guide

Reviewers are central to scholarly integrity and publishing quality. This guide outlines the expectations, responsibilities, and ethical standards that govern review activity on DAPresses.

• What reviewers are expected to assess
• How to provide constructive and useful feedback
• How to handle confidentiality and conflicts of interest
• How to support interdisciplinary accessibility and clarity

2. The Reviewer Role in the DAPresses Knowledge Ecosystem

• Maintaining academic quality and scholarly rigor
• Identifying ethical, methodological, or reporting concerns
• Helping authors improve structure, clarity, and positioning
• Supporting communication across disciplinary boundaries
• Strengthening journal reputation and indexing readiness

Reviewers work alongside Editors-in-Chief and Sectional Editors as part of the wider Dialogic Joint Editorial Board ecosystem.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Before Accepting

• Confirm subject expertise and availability
• Declare any conflicts of interest
• Decline promptly if you cannot complete the review on time

During the Review

• Evaluate objectively and fairly
• Maintain confidentiality
• Provide clear, constructive, and actionable feedback
• Identify methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns
• Support clarity for interdisciplinary readers where relevant

After the Review

• Submit a reasoned recommendation
• Separate comments for authors and editors where appropriate
• Respond to reasonable follow-up questions from the editorial team

4. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to follow COPE-aligned ethical standards and maintain a professional, evidence-based tone throughout the process.

• Protect manuscript confidentiality
• Avoid personal bias or discriminatory language
• Do not use unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage
• Disclose conflicts of interest transparently
• Keep feedback respectful, balanced, and scholarly

5. Evaluating Manuscripts

• Originality: novelty, contribution, and relevance
• Methodology: appropriateness, clarity, and reproducibility
• Clarity: structure, readability, and proper referencing
• Ethics: approvals, transparency, and integrity safeguards
• AI use: undisclosed AI misuse, fabricated citations, or over-reliance on tools

6. Writing Constructive Reviewer Reports

• Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript as you understand it
• Highlight strengths before moving into weaknesses or revisions
• Offer actionable suggestions rather than vague criticism
• Keep the tone professional and improvement-oriented
• Consider how the manuscript reads beyond the author's main discipline

7. Interdisciplinary Communication

DAPresses places particular value on readability across disciplines. Reviewers should flag discipline-specific jargon and recommend clearer explanations when the work targets broader academic audiences.

• Encourage clarity for non-specialist readers
• Support accessible framing of key ideas and methods
• Promote understanding across disciplinary boundaries

8. Identifying and Reporting Ethical Issues

• Plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Improper or undisclosed AI use
• Conflict-of-interest concerns
• Other conduct that could compromise the scholarly record

Concerns should be raised through the editorial office or by contacting info@dialogicsl.com.

9. Professional Conduct and Reviewer Benefits

Reviewers should keep to agreed timelines, avoid contacting authors directly, and communicate only through editorial channels.

DAPresses may recognise review contributions through certificates, acknowledgements, editorial opportunities, conference invitations, and visibility within the publishing network.

10. Reviewer Workflow Summary

1. Receive invitation
2. Accept or decline promptly
3. Conduct the review ethically and objectively
4. Submit the report and recommendation
5. Respond to clarifications if needed