On the reviewer's role and preconditions for acceptance

Before accepting an invitation to review, the reviewer should consider three issues. The first is subject-matter and methodological competence: it is not necessary to master every aspect of the manuscript, but one should have sufficient knowledge of either the substantive domain or the methodological approach to provide an informed judgment. When a manuscript combines a topic within the reviewer's expertise with a method they do not fully master, or vice versa, it is good practice to declare this partial scope to the editorial team, who may complement the evaluation with a second reviewer. The second issue is conflict of interest: recent collaborations with the authors, supervisory relationships, institutional overlap during the period of the research, or commercial interests related to the topic should be disclosed, even if the reviewer believes they do not affect their judgment. Although the journal operates under a double-blind system, authorship may be inferred in small academic communities; when this occurs, the reviewer should either proceed as if no inference had been made or decline the review. The third issue is time availability. Accepting a review implies a commitment to deliver within the agreed timeframe; delays followed by withdrawal are particularly damaging to the editorial process. If the timeline is incompatible with one's workload, it is preferable to decline promptly and, if possible, suggest a qualified colleague.

Once the invitation is accepted, the reviewer assumes a service role toward the editorial team, the authors, and future readers. The reviewer is neither an adversary of the author nor a defender of the status quo of the field, but a critical collaborator whose purpose is to assess whether the manuscript, as written or with revisions, contributes reliable knowledge to the discipline. Confidentiality is absolute: the manuscript must not be shared, used for teaching, cited, or employed as a source of ideas for the reviewer's own research prior to publication.

 

On the first reading: screening and global understanding

The first reading of a manuscript should be complete and free of extensive annotations, with the aim of forming an overall impression before focusing on detail. At its conclusion, the reviewer should be able to answer, in one or two sentences and without returning to the text, five questions: what is the research question, what data and methods are used, what is the main result, what claim does the paper make, and how does that claim differ from existing knowledge. If any of these answers is not clear after the first reading, the issue lies with the manuscript rather than the reviewer. Poor communication of the question, method, result, or contribution is itself a valid observation and often the most important one to convey.

This initial reading also helps detect scope mismatches with the journal, imbalances across sections, or inconsistencies between what the abstract promises and what the paper delivers. When such discrepancies are severe, it is advisable to inform the editorial team before investing time in a detailed review.

 

On evaluating the substantive contribution

The central question in any academic review is whether the manuscript generates new and useful knowledge. Addressing this requires distinguishing between three elements that are often conflated: the topic, the research question, and the contribution. A manuscript may address a relevant topic and pose a valid question yet still lack a substantive contribution if the answer is already well established in the literature. The reviewer must assess whether the claimed gap is real or merely rhetorical.

Scientific novelty may lie in new data, an unexplored context, an unidentified mechanism, a methodological improvement, or a result that challenges existing consensus. The reviewer should locate the contribution within one of these dimensions and evaluate whether the evidence supports the claim. When novelty is limited to geographic replication, the key issue is whether the new context reveals meaningful heterogeneity or simply reproduces known results.

A contribution that merely confirms existing literature rarely justifies publication, while one that claims to be transformative must be supported by correspondingly strong evidence. The alignment between claimed and actual contribution is often the most important aspect of the review.

 

On methodological evaluation

In quantitative manuscripts, methodological evaluation can be organized along four dimensions. The first is the alignment between design and research question: whether the identification strategy can answer the question posed. The second is internal validity: whether results are robust to alternative specifications, samples, and variable definitions. The third is external validity: the extent to which findings can be generalized. The fourth is transparency and reproducibility: whether the research process is described in sufficient detail to be understood or replicated.

In qualitative research or reviews, these criteria are adapted: concepts such as saturation, triangulation, and transparency in coding replace econometric robustness. A common mistake is to impose standards from one methodological tradition onto another.

 

On the correspondence between evidence and claims

Many editorial issues arise not from the evidence itself but from the gap between what the evidence supports and what the authors claim. Reviewers should assess whether the results justify the narrative of the paper. It is common to find causal claims supported only by correlational evidence, or broad implications derived from limited data.

In such cases, the most useful recommendation is to align claims with the scope of the evidence. A paper that makes more modest but accurate claims is preferable to one that overstates its findings.

 

On literature, references, and style

The literature review should be assessed critically: whether it includes key contributions, is up to date, and incorporates relevant regional evidence when appropriate. It is also important to evaluate whether the literature is presented as a structured dialogue rather than a list.

Formal issues are relevant but should play a secondary role. It is more useful to identify problems that affect comprehension or signal systematic carelessness than to act as a copy editor.

 

On writing the review report

A well-structured review report has three parts. First, a brief summary demonstrating understanding of the manuscript. Second, major comments addressing substantive issues, which should be specific, justified, and, when possible, actionable. Third, minor comments related to clarity and presentation.

The tone should address the text rather than the author and remain professional, even when identifying significant flaws.

Weak example: The author clearly does not understand what a valid instrument is.
Improved example: The instrumental variable strategy requires explicit justification of the instrument's exogeneity. In the current specification, it may be correlated with unobserved factors; further discussion or additional tests are recommended.

Weak example: The abstract is very poor and must be rewritten entirely.
Improved example: The abstract does not clearly state the contribution relative to existing literature. In particular, the originality section does not specify the contribution; it should be reformulated in a concise and precise manner.

 

On the editorial recommendation

The reviewer provides a recommendation that should be consistent with the report. Extensive substantive concerns are rarely compatible with minor revisions, and the absence of major issues rarely justifies rejection.

A useful distinction is between correctable and structural problems. The former allow for revision; the latter typically justify rejection. The key question is whether the manuscript can become publishable without becoming a fundamentally different paper.

Requests that require substantial new research, such as collecting new data or conducting additional experiments, generally exceed the reasonable scope of peer review.

 

On common biases to avoid

Several recurring biases affect peer review quality: confirmation bias, methodological bias, scope criticism, excessive harshness, and bias toward known authors or institutions. All should be actively mitigated.

A practical strategy is to revisit the report after some time and reassess both the substance and tone of the comments.

 

Final considerations

High-quality peer review is a service to the discipline. Reports that combine rigor with clear and constructive guidance improve both the manuscript under review and the broader research environment.

Reviewers who consistently provide timely, detailed, and useful reports are recognized by the journal, and their contribution constitutes a formal component of academic service.