Accepting a Review Invitation

If you receive an invitation to review from Cedid, you are expected to respond within 3 working days. When considering the invitation, please check the following points:

• Does the subject of the work fall within your area of expertise?
• Will you be able to complete the review within the period proposed?
• Is there a conflict of interest between you and the author(s)?

Where you need to decline an invitation, please assist the editor by suggesting, if possible, another specialist in the same field.

Conflict of Interest Declaration

The following relationships are regarded as conflicts of interest and must be reported to the editor before a review is accepted:

• Working at the same institution as the author(s)
• A shared publication history with the author(s) within the last three years
• A supervisor–student relationship with the author(s) (current or past)
• Family ties or a close personal relationship
• A financial interest directly related to the subject of the work
• Current professional rivalry with the author(s)

Confidentiality and Prohibition on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

All information you obtain as a reviewer (the submitted text, the review process, editorial correspondence) is confidential. Please do not share the submitted text with third parties, do not use it in academic discussions, and do not cite it until publication.

Artificial intelligence prohibition. You may not upload the submitted text to any artificial intelligence tool or cloud-based language model. Generating a review report using artificial intelligence is strictly prohibited. This restriction is essential for the protection of confidentiality and intellectual property.

Principles of Evaluation

Your evaluation should be based on concrete academic criteria rather than personal opinion. Please assess the work with the following dimensions in mind:

• Originality: Does the work offer a new contribution to the field?
• Research question: Is the question clear, meaningful and answerable?
• Theoretical framework: Is the framework consistent with the research question?
• Method: Is the method appropriate to the question and rigorously applied?
• Coherence of argument: Is the logical relationship between argument and evidence sound?
• Use of sources: Does the work engage sufficiently with the relevant literature? Are the citations apt?
• Conclusion: Is the conclusion proportionate to the findings, neither overstated nor incomplete?
• Writing and presentation: Do the language and format ensure readability?

Constructive feedback. The fundamental principle of review ethics is constructiveness. Even where you recommend rejection, show how the article could be improved. Make your criticisms concrete by giving page, paragraph and line references. Instead of “the method is weak”, write, for example, “supporting the X analysis with a Z test, because of Y, would have strengthened the argument”.

Structure of the Review Report

You are expected to prepare your evaluation using the Reviewer Evaluation Form provided by the journal. The form consists of three main sections:

1. Evaluation Visible to the Author

• Summary of the Work (120–180 words): Summarise in your own words the aim, theoretical framework, method and principal findings of the article. This section both demonstrates that you have read the text and shows the author how the reviewer has understood the article.
• General Assessment and Contribution: Set out your view of the originality of the work, its contribution to the field and its strengths in one or two paragraphs. Noting strengths before criticisms is important for review ethics.
• Major Criticisms (numbered): Set out, in numbered form, the structural problems that must be addressed before publication (fit between research question and method, theoretical framework, sample, analysis, interpretation, conclusion). Offer the author a concrete suggestion for improvement in respect of each item.
• Minor Criticisms (numbered): Indicate, in numbered form, matters of language, style, presentation of tables and figures, missing citations and formatting errors. Providing page and line numbers makes the author’s task easier.
• Constructive Suggestions (optional): Complementary sources, alternative methods or directions for future research.

2. Section for the Editor Only

Please use this section for views you do not wish to share with the author (your hesitations about the evaluation, the suitability of the article for the journal’s profile, your suggestions for reviewers, ethical concerns, any suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism, details of conflicts of interest). This section is read only by the editor.

3. Recommended Decision and Rationale

Indicate your recommended decision by selecting one of the five options below and summarise your reasoning in two or three sentences.

Review Period

The deadline for submission of the review report is a maximum of 4 weeks from acceptance of the invitation. If the report cannot be completed within this period, the editor should be contacted in advance; an extension may be requested where necessary. In cases of persistent delay the editor reserves the right to change the reviewer.

Recognition of Reviewers

Academics who review for the journal are issued with a Reviewer Contribution Certificate on request upon completion of the evaluation process. This certificate is made available for the reviewer’s use in academic incentive and promotion processes. Since the confidentiality of reviewers is essential, the journal does not publish an annual reviewer list or any similar collective announcement.