Before Accepting an Invitation to Review:

1. Expertise in the Subject Area

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and whether they possess the necessary knowledge and qualifications to provide a comprehensive and informed review. Reviewing manuscripts that align with one's expertise ensures that reviewers can evaluate the scientific validity, methodology, and significance of the research effectively. Reviewers should consider their familiarity with the subject matter, relevant methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and recent developments in the field when determining their suitability to review the manuscript.

2. Timely Completion of Reviews

Reviewers should evaluate their availability and capacity to complete a thorough review of the manuscript within the timeframe specified by the journal, typically 1-2 weeks. The expedited peer review process aims to minimize the time from submission to publication, requiring reviewers to promptly assess the manuscript and provide timely feedback to the editors and authors. Reviewers should consider their existing workload, professional commitments, and availability to ensure that they can dedicate sufficient time and attention to conduct a rigorous review within the designated timeframe.

3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity or impartiality in evaluating the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may arise from personal, professional, financial, or academic relationships with the authors, institutions, or funders involved in the research. Reviewers should consider whether they have collaborated with the authors, served as their mentors or mentees, competed for funding or recognition, or have any other significant connections that could influence their judgment. Full disclosure of conflicts of interest allows editors to assess the reviewer's impartiality and integrity and make informed decisions about reviewer assignments.

4. Confidentiality of the Article Contents

Reviewers should uphold the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from disclosing any information about the manuscript or their review to unauthorized individuals. Reviewers should treat the manuscript as privileged information and maintain its confidentiality throughout the review process and beyond. This includes refraining from discussing the manuscript with colleagues, sharing details of the review, or using information from the manuscript for personal gain. Maintaining confidentiality ensures the integrity, fairness, and trustworthiness of the peer review system and protects the rights of authors to have their work evaluated impartially and confidentially.

5. Ethical Behavior Throughout the Review Process

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior throughout the review process. This includes conducting the review with honesty, integrity, and impartiality, without bias or conflict of interest. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript objectively, based on its scientific merit, relevance, and originality, and provide fair and constructive feedback to the authors. Reviewers should refrain from engaging in any unethical practices, such as plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate use of privileged information. Additionally, reviewers should treat all individuals involved in the review process, including authors, editors, and fellow reviewers, with respect, professionalism, and courtesy. By maintaining ethical conduct, reviewers uphold the integrity and credibility of the scholarly publishing process and contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge with integrity and fairness.

If I Accept to Review:

1. I will evaluate the article based on its contribution to knowledge, technical soundness, comprehensive presentation, relevance of references, and appropriateness of the decision recommendation. This entails critically assessing the manuscript's originality, significance, and potential impact on the field. I will examine the clarity and coherence of the research objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions. Additionally, I will evaluate the accuracy and validity of the technical content, ensuring that the research is conducted and reported with integrity and rigor. I will also assess the thoroughness of the literature review and the appropriateness of the references cited in supporting the research. Based on these considerations, I will provide constructive feedback to help improve the quality and effectiveness of the manuscript.

2. I will maintain anonymity and ensure confidentiality of the article. As a reviewer, I understand the importance of preserving the confidentiality of the peer review process. Therefore, I will not disclose any information about the manuscript or my review to anyone without the explicit consent of the journal editor. I will refrain from sharing details of the manuscript or my review with colleagues, collaborators, or anyone else who is not directly involved in the review process. Maintaining anonymity and confidentiality is essential for fostering trust, integrity, and fairness in the peer review system.

Decision Recommendations:

1. Accept: I will recommend acceptance if the manuscript requires only minor edits or revisions before publication. Minor edits may include corrections to grammar, formatting, or minor clarifications to improve readability. In such cases, the authors will not be required to provide a detailed response to the reviewers' comments, and the manuscript can proceed to publication without significant delay.

2. Reject (updates required before resubmission): If the manuscript has merit but requires substantive revisions or updates before it can be considered suitable for publication, I will recommend rejection with an option for resubmission. Authors will be expected to address reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript accordingly before resubmitting it for further evaluation. Upon resubmission, authors must provide a detailed response to each reviewer's comments and clearly indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

3. Reject (do not encourage resubmit): I will recommend rejection without the option for resubmission if the manuscript has significant flaws, lacks scientific validity, or fails to address previous reviewers' concerns adequately. In such cases, the manuscript may not be suitable for publication in its current form, and further revisions are unlikely to sufficiently improve its quality or impact. Authors will be informed that resubmission to the journal is not recommended, and they may choose to submit their work to another publication venue.

Criteria for Acceptance:

1. Originality and Contribution to Knowledge

The manuscript should present original research findings or novel insights that significantly contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field. Authors should clearly articulate the research question, hypothesis, or objective and demonstrate how their work advances understanding, addresses gaps in the literature, or introduces innovative approaches or perspectives.

2. Experiments and Analyses Performed to a High Standard

The manuscript should provide a detailed description of the experimental design, methodology, data collection, and analysis procedures. Authors should demonstrate that experiments, simulations, or analyses were conducted rigorously, following appropriate standards and best practices in the field. Results should be presented accurately, with sufficient detail and statistical rigor to support the conclusions drawn.

3. Conclusions Supported by Data

The conclusions drawn in the manuscript should be logically derived from the presented data, results, and analyses. Authors should provide robust evidence to support their findings and interpretations, ensuring that conclusions are grounded in empirical observations or theoretical insights. The manuscript should avoid speculative or unsupported claims and clearly distinguish between observed results and interpretations or conjectures.

4. Correct Grammar and Appropriate References

The manuscript should adhere to high standards of written communication, with clear, concise, and grammatically correct language. Authors should ensure that the manuscript is free from typographical errors, grammatical mistakes, and ambiguities that may impair comprehension. Additionally, all references cited in the manuscript should be accurate, relevant, and appropriately cited, following the journal's citation style guidelines.

5. Article Falls Within the Journal's Scope

The manuscript should align with the aims and scope of the journal, addressing topics, themes, or issues relevant to the field covered by the journal. Authors should demonstrate an understanding of the journal's focus areas, target audience, and editorial policies, ensuring that their work contributes meaningfully to the journal's mission and objectives. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal or do not align with its thematic priorities may be deemed unsuitable for publication.

Reviewing Resubmissions:

1. Evaluate Updated Manuscript and Authors' Response to Previous Reviews:

When reviewing a resubmitted manuscript, reviewers should carefully examine the updated version of the manuscript along with the authors' response to the previous reviews. Reviewers should compare the original manuscript with the revised version to assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' comments and concerns. It is essential to evaluate whether the authors have made appropriate revisions, clarified ambiguities, addressed methodological limitations, and strengthened the manuscript based on the feedback provided in the previous review rounds.

2. Provide Feedback on Improvements and Whether Concerns Were Adequately Addressed

Reviewers should provide detailed feedback on the improvements made in the resubmitted manuscript and evaluate whether the authors have effectively addressed the concerns raised in the previous review rounds. Reviewers should assess whether the revisions have strengthened the quality, clarity, and rigor of the manuscript and whether the authors have adequately addressed each reviewer's comments and suggestions. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback on any remaining issues or areas for further improvement, ensuring that the revised manuscript meets the standards of the journal and contributes meaningfully to the field. If reviewers identify any unresolved concerns or new issues in the resubmitted manuscript, they should clearly communicate these to the authors and the editor, providing specific recommendations for further revisions or clarification. Ultimately, reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring that resubmitted manuscripts meet the journal's quality standards and are suitable for publication.

Best Practices for Reviewers:

1. Provide a Comprehensive Review Addressing Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations:

Reviewers should aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses. A thorough review should include constructive feedback on various aspects of the research, such as the clarity of the research question, the appropriateness of the methodology, the soundness of the results, and the significance of the findings. Reviewers should identify strengths in the manuscript, such as rigorous experimental design, clear presentation of results, or novel contributions to the field. Additionally, reviewers should identify areas for improvement or clarification, such as methodological limitations, inconsistent data interpretation, or gaps in the literature review. Recommendations for revisions should be specific, actionable, and aimed at enhancing the quality and impact of the manuscript. By providing a balanced assessment of the manuscript, reviewers help authors improve their work and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

2. Avoid Suggesting Irrelevant or Excessive References

Reviewers should carefully evaluate the relevance and appropriateness of the references cited in the manuscript. While it is important for authors to provide adequate support for their research through relevant literature citations, reviewers should avoid suggesting irrelevant or excessive references. Irrelevant references may not contribute substantively to the argument or context of the manuscript and may distract from the main points being made. Similarly, excessive references may overwhelm the reader and obscure the significance of the author's own contributions. Reviewers should assess whether each reference adds value to the manuscript and whether the citation accurately reflects the current state of knowledge in the field. If reviewers identify unnecessary or tangential references, they should provide specific feedback to the authors and suggest appropriate alternatives or deletions.

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining the quality and integrity of the Journal of Strategic and Defense Studies. Your contributions as a reviewer are invaluable to the success of our publication.