Guidelines for Reviewers

Wellbeing Futures: Innovation, Policy and Research is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous double-blind peer-review process. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the review process to promote fairness, objectivity, and unbiased evaluation. Reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding the quality, integrity, and credibility of the research published in the Journal and are expected to conduct their assessments in a professional, constructive, and ethical manner.

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers should carefully consider whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and whether they possess the necessary knowledge and experience to provide an informed evaluation. Reviewers should also ensure that they are able to complete the review within the timeframe specified by the editorial office, which is normally two weeks. If additional time is required, the handling editor should be notified as early as possible. Furthermore, reviewers should decline the invitation if any financial, professional, academic, institutional, or personal relationship could potentially influence their impartial judgment. Any actual or perceived conflict of interest must be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief before the review assignment is accepted.

In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are expected to assess its scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and overall contribution to the field. Particular attention should be given to whether the title accurately reflects the content of the study and whether the abstract provides a clear and informative summary of the research. Reviewers should examine the clarity and coherence of the manuscript's structure, including the introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions. Consideration should also be given to the relevance and currency of the literature cited, the appropriateness of the research design, the reliability and interpretation of the data, and the extent to which the evidence supports the conclusions presented by the authors.

Where statistical analyses, figures, tables, graphs, or other illustrations are included, reviewers should evaluate their accuracy, clarity, and relevance to the study. The methods employed should be described in sufficient detail to allow understanding, verification, and, where appropriate, replication of the research. Any specialized techniques, instruments, software, or analytical procedures should be adequately explained or supported through supplementary materials.

Review reports should be written in a constructive, respectful, and objective manner. The primary purpose of peer review is not only to assess the suitability of a manuscript for publication but also to assist authors in improving the quality of their work. Reviewers are therefore encouraged to provide detailed comments regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, the clarity and organization of the presentation, the adequacy of the evidence supporting the authors' claims, the appropriateness of the methodology, and any areas that may require clarification, revision, or additional documentation. Criticism should be expressed professionally and supported by clear reasoning.

Throughout the review process, reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality. Manuscripts received for review are privileged documents and must not be shared, discussed, copied, or used for personal advantage without the prior authorization of the handling editor. Reviewers should not seek assistance from third parties or disclose the contents of the manuscript unless explicit permission has been granted by Wellbeing Futures: Innovation, Policy and Research.

Reviewers also serve an important role in protecting research integrity. If concerns arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data manipulation, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, or any other form of potential misconduct, these concerns should be reported promptly and confidentially to the editorial office. Similarly, if a conflict of interest becomes apparent after a review has commenced, the reviewer should immediately notify the editor and, where necessary, withdraw from the review process.

Reviewer recommendations provide valuable guidance to the editorial team; however, they are advisory in nature. The final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor, who will consider the reviewers' comments alongside the Journal's editorial policies, ethical standards, and publication priorities.