Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations relies on qualified and independent reviewers to support the scholarly quality, methodological reliability, ethical integrity, and relevance of manuscripts considered for publication. Peer reviewers contribute expert assessment to the editorial process and assist editors in determining whether a manuscript provides a credible and meaningful contribution to the journal's field.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts impartially, constructively, confidentially, and within their areas of expertise. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final responsibility for editorial decisions remains with the Editor-in-Chief or another editor formally authorized to make decisions on behalf of the journal.

These guidelines establish the principal responsibilities and standards expected of individuals who agree to review manuscripts for the Journal of Circular Economy Innovations.

1. Role of the Reviewer

The primary responsibility of a reviewer is to provide an independent scholarly assessment of the manuscript. A review should help the editor evaluate the quality and suitability of the submission while also providing authors with constructive observations that may improve the clarity, methodological strength, interpretation, and presentation of their work.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript as submitted rather than according to personal preferences concerning theoretical orientation, methodology, geographic context, or research tradition.

A reviewer should not recommend acceptance or rejection on the basis of personal relationships, institutional considerations, commercial interests, ideological disagreement, or other factors unrelated to the scholarly merits of the submission.

2. Subject Expertise

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when the manuscript falls sufficiently within the reviewer's area of knowledge or methodological competence.

Because circular economy research is frequently interdisciplinary, reviewers are not necessarily expected to be specialists in every aspect of a manuscript. However, they should possess adequate expertise to evaluate the principal claims or methods assigned to them.

If important components of the manuscript fall outside the reviewer's competence, this should be communicated to the editor. The reviewer may indicate which aspects can be assessed confidently and which may require evaluation by an additional specialist.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for peer review are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or share the manuscript or its unpublished findings with unauthorized individuals. Information obtained through the review process must not be used for personal research, professional advantage, commercial purposes, competitive benefit, or any other unauthorized activity.

Where reviewer or author identities are masked under the journal's applicable peer-review procedure, reviewers should respect that arrangement and should not deliberately attempt to identify the authors.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed, including when a manuscript is rejected, withdrawn, or transferred to another editorial stage.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider whether any relationship or interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author;

  • close personal or professional relationships;

  • direct institutional relationships that could affect impartiality;

  • financial or commercial interests related to the research;

  • significant professional competition;

  • involvement in a closely related unpublished study;

  • legal or advisory relationships connected with the manuscript; or

  • other circumstances that could materially influence independent judgment.

A potential conflict does not always require automatic exclusion. Reviewers should disclose relevant circumstances to the editor so that an appropriate determination can be made.

Where impartial assessment cannot reasonably be maintained, the reviewer should decline the assignment.

5. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews should focus on the manuscript rather than the identity, presumed motives, status, nationality, institution, geographic location, or personal characteristics of the authors.

Comments should be expressed professionally and supported by scholarly reasoning. Reviewers may identify substantial weaknesses and recommend major changes when justified, but criticism should remain directed toward the research and its presentation.

Personal attacks, insulting statements, discriminatory comments, hostile language, or unsupported allegations are inappropriate.

A useful review identifies both significant strengths and material limitations and explains why particular revisions are necessary.

6. Evaluation of Scholarly Contribution

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript makes a sufficiently clear and meaningful contribution to knowledge concerning the circular economy or related areas within the journal's scope.

Depending on the article type, relevant questions may include:

  • Is the research problem clearly defined?

  • Is the purpose of the study academically significant?

  • Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant scholarship?

  • Is the research gap or conceptual problem adequately established?

  • Does the study contribute new evidence, analysis, theory, methodology, policy insight, or practical understanding?

  • Are the conclusions proportionate to the evidence presented?

  • Does the manuscript avoid overstating novelty, impact, or generalizability?

A manuscript should not be recommended favorably solely because its topic is timely. The quality of the research design, evidence, interpretation, and scholarly contribution should remain central to the assessment.

7. Relevance to Circular Economy Scholarship

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript establishes a substantive relationship with the journal's aims and scope.

Relevant areas may include circular production systems, resource efficiency, sustainable consumption, industrial symbiosis, material recovery, waste prevention, reuse and remanufacturing, product-life extension, circular supply chains, circular business models, regenerative systems, sustainable design, policy and governance, resource productivity, circular finance, behavioral dimensions of circularity, and interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability transitions.

Merely mentioning sustainability, recycling, or environmental concerns does not necessarily establish a substantive circular-economy contribution. Reviewers should consider whether circular principles are meaningfully integrated into the research question, framework, methodology, analysis, or implications.

8. Methodological Assessment

Reviewers should evaluate whether the methodology is appropriate for the research question and described with sufficient transparency.

For empirical studies, relevant considerations may include:

  • research design;

  • study population or sampling procedure;

  • data sources;

  • inclusion and exclusion criteria;

  • measurement methods;

  • experimental or analytical procedures;

  • statistical techniques;

  • model assumptions;

  • validation methods;

  • treatment of missing or uncertain data; and

  • acknowledgment of methodological limitations.

For qualitative research, reviewers may assess the suitability of participant selection, data collection, coding, interpretation, reflexivity, and evidentiary support.

For reviews and evidence syntheses, reviewers should consider whether the search, selection, appraisal, extraction, and synthesis procedures are sufficiently transparent for the type of review being reported.

For conceptual or theoretical papers, reviewers should focus on the coherence, originality, analytical rigor, engagement with existing literature, and scholarly usefulness of the proposed argument or framework.

9. Data and Research Transparency

Where data underpin the principal findings of a manuscript, reviewers should consider whether their origin, collection, processing, and analysis are described adequately.

Reviewers may assess whether:

  • data sources are clearly identified;

  • limitations of the dataset are acknowledged;

  • conclusions are supported by the available evidence;

  • data availability information is appropriate;

  • sensitive or confidential data appear to have been handled responsibly;

  • statistical or computational outputs are reported transparently; and

  • important exclusions or transformations have been explained.

Reviewers should not demand public disclosure of data when legitimate ethical, legal, privacy, security, contractual, or proprietary restrictions apply.

If access to underlying data is necessary to evaluate a specific methodological or integrity concern, the reviewer should communicate the need confidentially to the editor rather than contacting the author directly.

10. Tables, Figures, and Quantitative Evidence

Tables, graphs, and figures should be evaluated as components of the scholarly argument rather than merely as presentation elements.

Reviewers should consider whether visual and tabular materials:

  • correspond accurately to the manuscript's analysis;

  • are clearly labeled and interpretable;

  • avoid unnecessary duplication;

  • provide sufficient units, legends, or methodological context;

  • present data without misleading scales or selective emphasis; and

  • support rather than exaggerate the reported findings.

Where numerical results are central to the study, reviewers should consider whether important measures of uncertainty, effect, variation, or model performance have been reported where appropriate.

11. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should identify ethical issues that are relevant to the type of research under consideration.

These may include concerns relating to:

  • research involving human participants;

  • informed consent;

  • privacy and confidentiality;

  • vulnerable populations;

  • environmental or community impacts;

  • conflicts of interest;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • undisclosed funding influence;

  • potentially harmful applications;

  • misleading sustainability claims;

  • misuse of confidential information; or

  • other ethical matters affecting the integrity of the research.

Where a serious ethical concern is identified, the reviewer should describe it confidentially to the editor and provide sufficient information to support further editorial assessment.

Reviewers should not personally investigate authors or publicly disclose allegations arising from confidential peer review.

12. Plagiarism and Publication Misconduct

Reviewers are not expected to conduct a formal misconduct investigation. However, if a reviewer recognizes substantial overlap with another publication or becomes aware of possible plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other serious publication-integrity concerns, the matter should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Where possible, the reviewer should identify the relevant source or explain the basis of the concern.

Suspected misconduct should not be included as an unqualified accusation in comments intended directly for the author. Investigation and determination of appropriate action remain editorial responsibilities.

13. Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are genuinely relevant and necessary to improve the scholarly context, methodological justification, or interpretation of the manuscript.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer's own publications, a particular journal, or unrelated literature for the purpose of increasing citation counts.

Citation recommendations should be based solely on scholarly relevance.

Reviewers should also identify where important claims appear unsupported or where the manuscript relies excessively on outdated, inappropriate, or non-scholarly sources.

14. Use of Artificial Intelligence During Peer Review

The confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts must be preserved when using digital or AI-assisted tools.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, substantial manuscript content, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or identifying information to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external services where confidentiality, data retention, or subsequent use cannot be appropriately controlled.

Artificial intelligence should not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. The invited reviewer remains personally responsible for the accuracy, appropriateness, originality, and integrity of the submitted review.

Where the journal establishes a specific disclosure requirement concerning AI-assisted reviewing, reviewers should comply with that requirement.

15. Review of Interdisciplinary Research

Circular economy scholarship frequently combines environmental science, engineering, economics, management, public policy, behavioral science, social science, data science, design, and other disciplines.

Reviewers should recognize legitimate differences in disciplinary methods and reporting conventions.

A manuscript should not be criticized solely because it does not follow the methodological tradition of the reviewer's own discipline when the approach used is academically appropriate for the stated research question.

Where interdisciplinary assessment requires expertise beyond that of a single reviewer, the reviewer should recommend additional specialist evaluation rather than dismissing the manuscript on that basis.

16. Sustainability and Circularity Claims

Manuscripts may make claims concerning environmental improvement, circularity, resource efficiency, carbon reduction, waste avoidance, social benefit, economic viability, or sustainability performance.

Reviewers should examine whether such claims are supported by appropriate evidence and whether system boundaries, assumptions, trade-offs, rebound effects, displacement effects, and relevant limitations have been considered where applicable.

Claims that an intervention is “circular,” “sustainable,” “zero-waste,” “regenerative,” or environmentally superior should not be accepted solely as descriptive labels. The manuscript should provide an appropriate conceptual or evidentiary basis for such conclusions.

17. Constructive Reviewer Report

A reviewer report should be sufficiently detailed to allow the editor to understand the basis of the recommendation and the author to understand the principal issues requiring attention.

Where practical, reviewers should distinguish between:

Major Issues
Concerns that materially affect the methodology, validity, scholarly contribution, interpretation, ethical acceptability, or conclusions of the manuscript.

Minor Issues
Matters relating to clarity, presentation, terminology, organization, limited methodological explanation, references, or other points that can be addressed without fundamental redesign of the study.

Reviewers should avoid providing a recommendation without explaining the reasoning supporting it.

18. Reviewer Recommendations

Following assessment, reviewers may recommend an editorial outcome consistent with the options provided by the journal's review system.

Common recommendations may include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

A recommendation for acceptance should indicate that the manuscript is academically suitable in its present form or requires only negligible editorial correction.

Minor revision is appropriate where specific changes are required but the principal research design and conclusions remain sufficiently sound.

Major revision may be appropriate where substantial changes are necessary but the manuscript has the potential to become suitable for publication.

Rejection may be recommended where fundamental methodological, ethical, conceptual, evidentiary, or scope-related deficiencies cannot reasonably be addressed through revision.

The recommendation should be consistent with the substance of the written review.

19. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Where the review system provides separate confidential comments to the editor, reviewers may use this section to communicate information that should not appropriately appear in comments to the authors.

This may include:

  • potential conflicts of interest;

  • suspected misconduct;

  • significant ethical concerns;

  • concerns relating to reviewer identity or confidentiality;

  • sensitive legal matters; or

  • explanations concerning the reviewer's recommendation.

Confidential comments should not contradict the substantive assessment provided to the authors without a legitimate reason.

20. Timeliness

Reviewers should respond to invitations promptly and complete accepted reviews within the period specified by the journal whenever reasonably possible.

If a reviewer becomes unable to complete the assignment on time, the editorial office should be informed promptly so that an extension or alternative reviewer can be considered.

Accepting a review and then failing to respond can unnecessarily delay editorial decisions and the communication of research.

Reviewers should therefore accept assignments only when they reasonably expect to complete them.

21. Communication With Authors

Reviewers should not contact authors directly concerning a manuscript under review unless explicitly authorized by the journal.

Questions, requests for clarification, concerns about missing information, and other review-related communication should be directed through the editorial system or handling editor.

This separation supports confidentiality, appropriate documentation, and consistent editorial oversight.

22. Revised Manuscripts

A reviewer invited to evaluate a revised manuscript should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised in the previous review.

Reviewers are not required to agree with every author response. However, where authors provide a reasonable scholarly justification for not implementing a suggested change, the explanation should be evaluated on its academic merits.

New major requirements should generally not be introduced during later review rounds unless they arise from revisions, newly identified substantive problems, or information that could not reasonably have been identified earlier.

23. Reviewer Recognition and Confidentiality

The journal may acknowledge the contribution of peer reviewers in aggregate or through mechanisms that preserve the confidentiality of individual manuscript evaluations, where applicable.

Reviewer identity should not be publicly associated with a particular manuscript without an appropriate journal procedure and the reviewer's authorization where required.

Participation as a reviewer does not confer authorship, editorial authority, or ownership over the manuscript.

24. After Completion of the Review

After submitting a review, reviewers should continue to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and associated editorial information.

Unpublished findings, ideas, data, methods, or other material obtained through peer review must not be used without appropriate authorization.

If a reviewer later identifies a material error in the submitted review or becomes aware of information that could significantly affect the editorial assessment, the reviewer should inform the editorial office promptly.

Reviewer Commitment

By accepting an invitation to review for the Journal of Circular Economy Innovations, a reviewer agrees to provide an independent, confidential, evidence-based, and professionally conducted scholarly assessment within the limits of the reviewer's expertise.

The journal values peer review as an essential component of responsible scholarly communication. Reviewers are expected to contribute to a process that supports methodological quality, ethical research, constructive academic dialogue, editorial independence, and the integrity of the published scholarly record.