Thank you for considering a review for us and for giving your time. The work of our reviewers is the foundation of the journal's quality. The notes below are meant to make the review process easier for you.

Responding to the invitation

We would be grateful for a response to the invitation within three days, so that, if needed, we can contact another reviewer without delay. It is best to decline if the topic lies outside your expertise, if you believe you know the author, or if you have worked with the author in the last three years. Suggesting a suitable alternative reviewer is a great help to the editor.

Deadlines

The deadline for the first review is 20 days; a reminder is sent at the end of the second week. The deadline for reviewing a revised text is two weeks. If you need more time, just let the editor know; we are happy to extend the deadline.

Confidentiality

As the manuscript you review is unpublished, it is confidential. We kindly ask you not to share it with others, quote it or use it in your own work. For the same reason, please do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to AI tools or generate your report with AI.

Writing the report

• Opening the report with a two- or three-sentence summary helps the author see how their work was read.
• Giving major and minor issues under separate headings makes the report easier to follow.
• It is most helpful to pair each criticism with a specific suggestion the author can act on.
• Instead of listing typos one by one, a general note is enough.
• Keeping criticism focused on the work rather than the person helps the author read the report as a constructive contribution.
• We kindly ask that suggested references be limited to those genuinely necessary; citations to your own work should not be made a condition.

The journal's specific criteria

• Data and code availability: if data and code are shared, it helps to check whether the link works and whether the analysis is understandable; if not, whether the stated reason is adequate.
• Implications for practice: we would value your view on whether this section really follows from the findings and connects to a concrete context of practice.
• From the Field papers: practitioner reviewers are asked in particular to assess the paper's accuracy in practice and its usefulness for practitioners.

Review form

Reviews are submitted through the online form in the journal system. The form covers 12 criteria (Inadequate, Needs improvement, Adequate, Good), comments for the author, confidential comments for the editor and the reviewer declaration.

Acknowledgement

Every reviewer receives a certificate of reviewing on request. At the end of each year, the journal publishes the list of reviewers who served that year.