1. A distinguished expert within the subject area can act as a peer reviewer. The editorial board selects the referee for each text.
2. The reviewer must not be biased in any way. If the peer reviewer has any conflicts of interest related to the content or author(s) of the text, or if the peer reviewer is involved in some other way with the matter, he/she must inform the editor and decline to review. The peer reviewer cannot be the author’s immediate family, supervisor, employee, or advisor. The reviewer must not have published papers or worked on the same research projects in the last 3 years with none of the authors. As a last resort, the reviewer must withdraw from the review process if there appears to be a conflict of interest.
3. All manuscripts and related material are protected by the author’s copyright. Thus, all material shared for review are confidential, and all files and hard copies should be handled accordingly. They must not be discussed or shown to external parties unless this is clearly agreed with the editor in chief. One should not use the content of an unpublished manuscript for one’s own advantage without permission.
4. Both the author and the peer reviewer know each other’s identity. The referee’s name, title, educational degree and organisation will be published with the article.
5. The feedback must be constructive, well-argued, concrete and critical. The feedback should focus on points that help the author improve the text and it should be formulated accordingly. There is a ready-made template for giving feedback.
6. Peer reviewers will not receive financial compensation.