Guidelines for Reviewers
sustain strives for a solidary review process that contributes constructively to the scientific quality of the submissions.
The submissions therefore undergo an open peer review process. Two peer reviewers assess the submissions. The identities of the author and reviewer remain visible during the procedure. In this way, authors and reviewers can enter into an exchange in order to collaboratively improve the quality of the article.
Impartiality and neutrality
Reviewers should withdraw from a review if they cannot make a neutral, objective and subject-related assessment. Conflicts of interest must be reported immediately to the publisher. A conflict of interest constitutes:
- employment or management positions with relevant organizations
- consulting or reviewer activities
- financial relationships, fees or shares
- intangible conflicts of interest such as personal relationships
Discrimination on the basis of nationality, religion, gender or academic status is strictly prohibited. Evaluations must be based exclusively on scientific criteria.
Reviews must be written respectfully and professionally. Personal attacks or comments damaging to reputation are not permitted. Criticism is directed at the text, not the authors.
Confidentiality
No one outside the individual reviewing process may be involved unless the authors have explicitly permitted this. Information from manuscripts is not public and may not be reused. Manuscripts may not be uploaded to freely accessible databases or AI systems. Reviewers must destroy all copies after completing the review.
Constructiveness
Good reviews are characterized by constructiveness. In the event of ambiguities, reviewers should refer to these specifically and ask precise questions. Authors have the right to other points of view as long as they are documented. Reviews should be accessible and understandable. Generalizing or vague statements should be avoided. The aim is to help authors improve their work with constructive feedback.
Focus of the assessment
The aim of the review is to recommend whether the article should be accepted, revised or rejected. This recommendation should be justified in a continuous text that addresses the following aspects:
- Relevance of the article for the current research discourse
- Matching article and journal
- Technical precision of the article
- Traceability of objectives, methods and results of the article
- Coherence of the article
- Intrinsic value of the article
The reviewer is not responsible for checking spelling and grammar unless they impair comprehension.
