The journal operates a two-stage, anonymous peer review process. The author and reviewer should be anonymous at all stages of the review. After accepting the invitation to complete the review of this article, please refer to the information set out below to assist you in your feedback. The peer review form is available on the following page. You can also upload additional files containing further comments relevant to the review on this page.

By accepting this invitation to review this article, you are agreeing to adhere to the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for peer reviewers, which can be accessed at the following link: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

As part of this review task, the journal expects:

All correspondence and associated files/data linked to this submission must remain confidential, unless otherwise authorised by the journal.
Any potential conflicts of interest must be declared as part of the review process. A conflict of interest must be declared if there is any reason why the information being produced may be influenced by a personal or financial relationship with other organisations or individuals, or if these relationships could be reasonably perceived from other people as having influenced objective data or decision-making (e.g. you can identify the author/research group and come from the same institution, have worked with them in the previous 3 years, you have a financial interest in the subject matter). The full Competing Interests policy can be found on the journal website.

Should you require any assistance during the review the below may be of use. If not, please get in touch and we will be happy to help:

https://bit.ly/Reviewer-Guide-OJS-3 (downloadable PDF)

https://help.u-community.io (online Help Center)

General guide to aid the review:

1) General comments and summary of recommendation

Does the article fit within the scope of the journal?

2) Content:
Please consider the originality, relevance and rigour of the submission and the author’s depth of understanding of the issues being researched. Please comment on the adequacy of the author’s referencing and whether or not the existing knowledge base has been explored and built upon. Please comment on methodologies used and their appropriateness, and the author’s use of the evidential base. Does the conclusion reflect the argument in the main body text and bring something new to the debate?

3) Structure and argument:

Please consider whether the abstract summarises the arguments in a succinct and accurate way. Is the manuscript logically structured and do the arguments flow coherently? Is there enough reference to methodology in the introduction and are the arguments fully evidenced and substantiated ? Does the introduction signpost the arguments in the logical way and does the conclusion adequately summarise them?

4) Figures/tables:

Please comment on the author’s use of tables, charts, figures or maps – their relevance in terms of illustrating the arguments and supporting the evidential base, the quality of the formatting and presentation.

5) Formatting:

Does the submitted file adhere to the general author guidelines listed for the journal? Are the citations and references formatted to house-style?

6) Language

Is the text well written and jargon free? Please comment on the quality of English and need for grammatical improvement.

Provide comments and suggestions for improvement, if required, with additional references or possible clarification of arguments, etc. You can also add comments to the text of the article and upload your comments, if you see fit.

All reviews should be provided in a courteous and respectful format. Whilst criticism of the content is part of the remit, such feedback should be written in a constructive and informed manner. The tone and language used in review feedback should be considered and provided in a collegial manner. Unsuitable content (aggressive, offensive, libellous, accusatory, discriminatory etc) comments will not be accepted. If part of a review report is deemed to be unsuitable, or require clarification, then the editor may, in very rare circumstances, choose to edit the report prior to showing the authors. Should this occur, only issues of tone, language and deviations from journal policy will be edited. They will not change the meaning or intention of the review, nor alter the reviewer’s professional opinion about the quality, content, or intellectual validity of the manuscript under review. Less extreme cases may simply warrant a cautionary note from the Editor in the decision letter. We greatly value the efforts that all our reviewers put into the journal. Writing reports that are constructive, courteous, and clear help give them maximum value.

Announcements