Reviewer Guidelines

How invitations work

When you're invited to review, you'll receive an email with the manuscript title, abstract, and a unique secure link. The link gives you access to the submission without needing to register an account. Please respond within 7 days to accept or decline.

Review timeline

We ask reviewers to complete their reports within 4 weeks of acceptance. If you need more time, please email the Managing Editor in advance.

Evaluation criteria

You'll be asked to rate the manuscript on a 1–5 scale across four dimensions (1 = unacceptable, 5 = excellent) and to recommend a decision.

• Originality — does the work add a meaningful new contribution to the field?
• Methodology — are methods appropriate, rigorous, and well described? Are data and code adequately reported?
• Significance — does the work matter to scholars of leadership, security, or development?
• Clarity — is the manuscript clearly written and structured? Are figures and tables effective?

Your recommendation is one of: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.

Writing your report

Each review has two text fields:

• Comments to the author — substantive feedback the author will see verbatim. Frame critiques constructively and specifically.
• Confidential comments to the editor — anything you want the editor to know but not share with the author (concerns about ethics, suspected duplication, etc.).

Conflicts of interest

Please decline invitations where you have a conflict, including:

• Co-authorship or close collaboration with any author in the last 3 years.
• Institutional affiliation with any author at the time of the submission.
• Financial, supervisory, or family relationship with any author.
• Active competing publication on the same data or methods.

Confidentiality

Treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not circulate it, quote from it, or use the data prior to publication. If you wish to involve a colleague or graduate student in the review, please request permission from the editor first and disclose their identity.

Use of generative AI in reviewing

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to public AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, public APIs), as this breaches the author's confidentiality. Limited use of AI for language polishing of your own review text is acceptable, provided the manuscript itself is not shared with the tool.

Ethics concerns

If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, undeclared conflicts, or other research misconduct, raise it in confidential comments to the editor. The journal follows the COPE guidelines for handling such concerns.

Recognition

We acknowledge reviewers annually in the journal's editorial. If you'd like Publons / Web of Science Reviewer credit, let the Managing Editor know and we can confirm your reviews to the platform.

---

Thank you for the time you give to this. Peer review is unpaid but essential labour — without it, the scholarship doesn't move forward.