Reviewer Instructions

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Thank you for contributing to the peer-review process of the Proceedings of the Faculty of Security Studies. Your expert assessment helps ensure the publication of high-quality, methodologically sound, and relevant scholarly and professional contributions.

2. Confidentiality and Anonymity

The peer-review process is confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, distribute, or use the submitted manuscript (or any part of it) outside the review process. Please do not disclose your identity to the authors and do not attempt to identify the authors.

3. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • report any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, redundant publication, or other ethical concerns in confidential comments to the editor;

  • disclose any conflicts of interest (financial, professional, institutional, or personal) and decline the review if impartiality cannot be guaranteed;

  • handle all information obtained during the review as confidential.

4. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be fair, evidence-based, and free of bias. Feedback should be professional, specific, and constructive, with clear suggestions that help authors improve the manuscript. Critique the work, not the authors.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Please evaluate the manuscript using the following criteria (as applicable):

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Theoretical framework and literature review

  • Clarity of the research problem, aims, and relevance

  • Methodology and research design (rigor, transparency, reproducibility)

  • Data collection and analysis (reliability, validity, appropriateness)

  • Results and findings (clarity, consistency, significance)

  • Discussion (quality of interpretation, depth of analysis, linkage to research questions)

  • Conclusion (main contributions, limitations, and future directions)

  • Practical and/or policy implications (if applicable)

  • Clarity, structure, and overall presentation

  • Relevance to the scope of the Proceedings

  • Ethical considerations (e.g., human subjects, permissions, conflicts of interest)

6. Structure of the Review Report

Please organize your report using the following sections:

A. Brief Summary
Provide a short summary of what the manuscript addresses and its main contribution.

B. Strengths
List the main strengths of the manuscript.

C. Major Issues
Identify major concerns that must be addressed (e.g., methodological weaknesses, insufficient evidence, unclear research design, missing literature, major structural problems).

D. Minor Issues
Provide detailed, line-level suggestions (e.g., clarity, wording, formatting, referencing, minor inconsistencies).

E. Recommendation
Select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Major revisions required (resubmission needed)

  • Reject

7. Language and Presentation

Please comment on the quality of English language, readability, and formatting:

  • English language and style are satisfactory

  • Minor language and formatting improvements required

  • Extensive language revision required

8. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional)

Use this section to communicate concerns that should not be shared with the authors (e.g., ethical issues, potential plagiarism, conflicts of interest, serious methodological flaws).

9. Reviewer Declaration

By submitting your review, you confirm that:

  • you have no conflicts of interest (or you have disclosed them);

  • you have provided a fair and objective assessment;

  • you have adhered to confidentiality and ethical review standards.