Reviewers' Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers play a vital role in the editorial process by providing essential feedback to both editors and authors. Your evaluations help editors make informed decisions and assist authors in enhancing the quality of their manuscripts. Peer review is fundamental to scholarly communication, embodying the principles of the scientific method. Treat authors and their work with the same respect and consideration you would expect for your own, and adhere to best practices in reviewing.

If you feel unqualified to review the research in a manuscript or unable to provide a timely review, please inform the editor and decline the review request. Reviewers have four weeks to complete their review.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or any details about the manuscript with anyone without permission from the editor. Discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing is permitted only with the editor’s approval to ensure confidentiality and appropriate credit.

Unpublished information in a manuscript must not be used in your own research without the author's explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Peer Review

Manuscripts and review reports must not be uploaded to generative AI tools, as this can breach confidentiality and proprietary rights and may violate data privacy. Reviewers should not use AI to assist in generating peer review reports or improving their language and readability, as AI may produce incorrect, incomplete, or biased outputs. Reviewers are ultimately responsible and accountable for the content of their reviews.

Authors may use AI tools to improve the language and readability of their manuscripts, with appropriate disclosure. Reviewers should note any such disclosure, found in a section before the list of references.

Alertness to Ethical Issues

Be vigilant for potential ethical issues in manuscripts, such as substantial similarity or overlap with other published works. Report any ethical concerns to the editor, citing relevant references if necessary. Any statement indicating that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Standards of Objectivity and Competing Interests

Reviews should be conducted objectively and without personal bias. Avoid personal criticism of the author. Clearly express your views with supporting arguments.

Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor before agreeing to review a manuscript. Conflicts may arise from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, companies, or institutions related to the manuscript.

If you suggest that an author cites your work (or that of your associates), ensure it is for genuine scientific reasons, not to increase your citation count or visibility.

As a reviewer for Design Dialogue Journal, you are essential to ensuring the quality and integrity of our publication. Your objective and constructive feedback helps improve manuscripts and maintains the high standards of our journal. Uphold confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and adhere to ethical guidelines. Your thorough and respectful reviews are crucial to advancing knowledge and fostering academic excellence.