Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers may be invited by Section Editors when an Article requires subject-specific expert evaluation. External reviewers play an important role in confirming technical clarity and factuality.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate submissions against the following parameters:

• Scope: Is the topic relevant to the assigned NiviScholar Insights series?
• Clarity: Is the writing understandable, well-structured, and accessible?
• Evidence: Are the claims sufficiently supported by references, observations, or general facts?
• Originality: Does the article represent original framing or synthesis (not copy-pasted or plagiarized)?
• Ethical Concerns: Are there signs of fabricated sources, undisclosed AI writing, or conflicting interests?

Reviewer Recommendations

After reviewing the Article, you should provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The article is ready for publishing in its current state.
• Minor Revisions Required: Needs minor grammatical or source adjustments.
• Major Revisions Required: Needs structural changes, deeper arguments, or revised references.
• Reject: Out of scope, contains serious inaccuracies, or lacks ethical integrity.