Reviewers Guidelines

• The applicant should preferably hold a Ph.D. or an equivalent doctoral qualification in a relevant discipline.
• The applicant should be working as an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Scientist or Research Professional in a recognised institution.
• Candidates holding a postgraduate degree with substantial teaching, research or professional experience may also be considered.
• The applicant must possess appropriate subject expertise in the proposed area of review.
• A record of research publications in recognised journals, edited books or conference proceedings is desirable.
• The applicant should demonstrate familiarity with research ethics, peer review and academic publication standards.

Interested candidates may apply to join the Editorial Board or Reviewer Panel by sending an updated curriculum vitae, institutional affiliation, areas of expertise and an institutional or academic profile link to:

Email: editor@scholarlyforesight.com

Applications will be reviewed by the Editorial Committee. Selected candidates will be informed by email, and their approved profiles may be displayed on the journal website.

Reviewers are responsible for critically evaluating manuscripts within their areas of expertise and providing fair, constructive, timely and unbiased recommendations. Their contribution is essential to improving the quality, clarity and academic reliability of scholarly publications.

• Assess the originality, relevance, academic contribution and methodological quality of the manuscript.
• Provide clear, constructive and evidence-based comments for improvement.
• Evaluate whether the title, abstract, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and references are appropriate and consistent.
• Identify significant errors, unsupported claims, ethical concerns or possible publication misconduct.
• Recommend acceptance, revision or rejection on the basis of academic merit.
• Maintain objectivity, professionalism and respect in all reviewer comments.

• If a manuscript falls outside the reviewer’s area of expertise, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly.
• Review reports should normally be completed within one to two weeks. Additional time may be requested when necessary.
• All manuscripts and related editorial communications must be treated as confidential.
• Reviewers must not share, reproduce, quote or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.
• Reviewers must decline assignments involving personal, professional, financial or institutional conflicts of interest.
• Comments should focus on the manuscript and must not contain personal criticism of the author.
• Any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation or ethical concern should be reported confidentially to the editor.
• If a reviewer becomes unable to complete an accepted review, the editor should be informed without delay.

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of the peer-review process and follow recognised principles of academic integrity and publication ethics. Information obtained during review must not be disclosed or used for purposes unrelated to the editorial evaluation of the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations should be based solely on scholarly quality, originality, relevance and ethical compliance.

The Scholarly Foresight values the academic service of its Editorial Board Members and Reviewers. Active participation in strengthening editorial policies, maintaining ethical standards and promoting high-quality multidisciplinary research is encouraged and appreciated. Constructive suggestions for improving the journal’s review and publication practices are always welcome.