As a reviewer for Lectio Socialis, you help maintain the journal’s standards of academic quality, ethical integrity, and scholarly rigor. The following guidelines support a constructive, transparent, double-blind review process. We are grateful for your time and expertise.

1. Commitment, timeliness, and language

Before accepting an invitation, please make sure you can complete the review within the requested time; timely reviews keep the editorial workflow running and respect authors’ efforts. As the journal conducts peer review in English, all reports and correspondence should be in clear, academically appropriate English. Lectio Socialis issues a digitally signed certificate of appreciation to every reviewer who completes a review.

2. Communication

A confidential internal messaging system connects reviewers and editors. Use it at any point to seek clarification, raise concerns, or give feedback; editors may also contact you for further input.

3. Ethical responsibility

Disclose any potential conflict of interest — personal, academic, or institutional — before reviewing. Reviewing requires impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for authorship, and reviewers should not suggest citations to their own work unless clearly relevant. We follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

4. Evaluation structure

The review form combines scaled questions with open comments. You may also annotate the manuscript or upload a separate document with detailed comments. To protect anonymity, ensure uploaded files contain no identifying information, and use a neutral label (e.g., “Reviewer A”) in any tracked changes or comments.

5. Peer review as learning and service

We regard reviewing as both a scholarly contribution and a learning opportunity. Training resources include the COPE guidelines, the Elsevier Reviewer Hub, and Wiley Reviewer Resources.

6. Respectful, clear language

Write constructively and respectfully. Begin with a brief overall assessment, then evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses, and close with specific, actionable suggestions and a clear recommendation (accept, revise, or reject) with reasons.

7. Confidentiality and integrity

All information from the review is confidential and must not be shared without the editorial office’s permission. To consult a colleague or co-review, contact the editors first.

8. Recognition

We acknowledge the often-invisible work of review. In addition to certificates, completed reviews can be recorded on Web of Science Reviewer Recognition (formerly Publons) and linked to your ORCID record. Your feedback also helps us improve the process.

9. Reviewer eligibility and conflict-of-interest declaration

Before accepting an invitation, assess your eligibility. Undertake a review only if you can guarantee full independence from the authors, the editors, and the research.

a. Disqualifying conflicts — decline the invitation if any of the following apply:

–   a close personal, family, or friendship relationship with any author or the handling editor;

–   an ongoing collaboration with any author, including a manuscript in preparation or under review, or an active joint project;

–   a financial or business relationship with an author or their institution, including shared grants or any financial interest that could be affected by the manuscript’s findings.

b. Declarable conflicts — do not necessarily prevent review but must be disclosed to the editorial office, which may request a transparency statement and decide whether you proceed:

–   a published collaboration or completed project with an author within the last two years;

–   a supervisory or student relationship with an author within the last three years;

–   employment at the same institution or parent organization as an author;

–   membership of the same research consortium, committee, advisory board, or working group without direct collaboration;

–   past involvement in a grant or project that is no longer active.

c. Expertise

Reviewers should have advanced knowledge of the subject, typically a doctoral degree or equivalent. Early-career researchers may contact the editorial office about co-review or training.

d. Acknowledgment

By accepting an invitation, you agree that, if the manuscript is accepted, your name and affiliation may be acknowledged in the published article as recognition of scholarly service; this does not affect the anonymity of the double-blind process during review.