Peer review depends on researchers who are willing to examine a manuscript carefully, explain what works, identify what needs attention, and help an editor reach a sound decision. ICPK welcomes expressions of interest from qualified researchers who want to become a peer reviewer for a journal in their field.

ICPK provides publishing infrastructure, policy, and administrative support. Each journal’s Editor-in-Chief and editorial board hold editorial authority, select reviewers, assess reports, and make acceptance or rejection decisions. These peer reviewer guidelines explain the standards expected across ICPK journals; the review model and number of reviewers used for a manuscript are set by each journal and published on its peer review page.

How peer review is coordinated

Reviewing is coordinated directly by the relevant journal’s editorial team through email. There is no reviewer dashboard, reviewer login, online round-tracking interface, or scoring form to complete. An invited reviewer receives the manuscript and relevant instructions, considers the work, and returns a written assessment to the editorial team.

Before accepting, the reviewer should check the journal’s peer review page and the invitation details. Those sources explain the journal-specific review model and any requirements that apply to the assignment. The editorial team, rather than ICPK as publisher, manages the manuscript and decides how the report informs the editorial decision.

What makes a useful review

A strong assessment gives the editor a reasoned basis for deciding and gives the author practical guidance for revision. When considering how to review a manuscript, reviewers should address questions such as:

• Is the research question clear, relevant, and worth asking?
• Does the chosen method suit that question?
• Are the analysis and evidence sufficient to support the conclusions?
• Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant existing literature?
• Is the work organised and written clearly for its intended readers?
• Are important limitations, uncertainties, or alternative interpretations acknowledged?

Specific reasoning is more useful than a verdict. A recommendation such as “reject” or “accept with revision” offers little value unless the report explains the evidence and reasoning behind it. Comments should identify where a problem occurs, why it matters, and, where possible, what kind of clarification or revision would address it.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential concerns and optional suggestions. They should not require authors to adopt the reviewer’s preferred theory, method, citation choices, or writing style where the manuscript’s approach is defensible. Comments must address the work, not the author, and should remain professional, fair, and constructive even where the reviewer identifies serious weaknesses.

Confidentiality and responsible AI use

Reviewer confidentiality applies from the moment an invitation or manuscript is received. The manuscript, supplementary material, correspondence, and information about the review must not be shared with colleagues or other people unless the editorial team has first authorised that involvement.

A manuscript under review must not be uploaded, copied, or submitted to any public or third-party artificial intelligence service. Doing so can disclose confidential material beyond the journal’s control. The assessment must reflect the reviewer’s own reading, expertise, and judgment, in accordance with ICPK’s AI Use Policy.

Reviewers must not use unpublished arguments, findings, data, or other material from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage. Broader expectations for responsible conduct are set out in ICPK’s Publication Ethics. ICPK follows widely used principles of transparency and best practice as a matter of practice; it is not a COPE member.

Competing interests and when to decline

A reviewer should decline when the manuscript falls outside their competence, when they cannot give it adequate time, or when a competing interest could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their judgment. Relevant interests may include recent collaboration or co-authorship, an institutional connection, a personal relationship, or a financial interest.

Declining promptly is more helpful than accepting an assignment and delaying it. A reviewer who knows a suitable alternative may suggest that person to the editorial team, although the journal remains responsible for selecting and inviting reviewers.

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, fabrication, undisclosed competing interests, unethical research, or another ethical problem, the concern should be reported privately to the editor with the reasons or evidence available. It should not be presented as an accusation in comments addressed to the author.

Reviewer recognition

ICPK journals provide two modest forms of non-monetary recognition. After three completed reviews for the same journal, a reviewer may request a certificate. A completed review is one that the editor accepted as a usable report; submitting a report that the editor cannot use does not count toward the three.

A journal may also publish an annual acknowledgement naming reviewers who completed at least one review during that year and opted in to being named. Consent is requested explicitly and in advance; it is never assumed merely because someone reviewed.

Neither form of recognition is compensation. The certificate identifies no manuscript, author, or editorial outcome, and the annual acknowledgement does not connect a reviewer to a particular paper. Reviewer confidentiality therefore remains intact.

Both are handled directly and manually by the journal’s editorial team. There is no reviewer dashboard, automated issuance, or certificate available for self-service download.

Become a peer reviewer

Researchers interested in reviewing may volunteer through the ICPK Contact page. The message should name the journal, describe the researcher’s areas of expertise, provide their current affiliation, and include a link to a professional profile or publication list. Volunteering records an expression of interest; review invitations remain subject to the journal editorial team’s needs and assessment of fit.

ICPK particularly welcomes interest from researchers in regions not already well represented on journal editorial and advisory boards. Broader participation can bring relevant disciplinary, institutional, and regional knowledge to the assessment of research.

Reviewers are never paid. ICPK offers no reviewer fee, honorarium, voucher, APC discount, or other item with monetary value, and it provides no credit beyond the modest recognition described above. The reason to review is the scholarly contribution: applying expertise to help editors judge work responsibly and helping authors strengthen research that may enter the published record.