The role of the reviewer is vital, and they bear a great responsibility in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. Every reviewer is expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, following the COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).

Reviewers should meet the following criteria:

• They should have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors;
• They should not be part of the same institution as the authors;
• They should not have published with the authors in the past three years;
• They should hold a PhD or PhD equivalent;
• They should have relevant experience and a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (accessible through Scopus or ORCID);
• They should be experienced scholars in the field of the submitted paper;
• They should hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

It requires rigorous peer review to ensure the thorough evaluation of each manuscript; this is a fundamental task for our reviewers. Reviewers are expected to meet the following requirements:

• They must have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of manuscripts;
• They need to provide high-quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;
• They must maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.

Peer reviewers have an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations.

Reviewers are expected to provide an unbiased, constructive critique of the manuscript. Reviews should be objective and constructive, ensuring feedback is clear and helpful to authors.

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts they evaluate. They should not disclose any information about the work or use it for personal advantage, ensuring the integrity of the review process.

Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest. This includes financial, personal relationships, or academic rivalries that could affect impartiality.

Reviewers are encouraged to complete their evaluations promptly to facilitate timely publication processes. Delays can hinder the dissemination of important research findings and affect authors' careers.

The ethical obligations of reviewers, include avoiding bias, respecting intellectual property rights, and recognising the contributions of others. Reviewers must uphold the highest ethical standards in their evaluations.