Peer review · draft guidance

Reviewer Guide and Scorecard

Independent, constructive, confidential review of rigorous sustainability implementation evidence.

Double-anonymous review workflow. Reviewers must sign in to a specifically approved reviewer account. An invitation is not the same as unrestricted manuscript access; confidential files must first pass an editorial anonymity check.

Download complete reviewer guide (Word)Reviewer sign-in

Reviewer workflow

1. Invitation

Check subject expertise, availability and deadline.

2. Independence

Declare potential conflicts before accepting; normally respond promptly.

3. Review

Study the approved anonymised manuscript and evaluate the JSGI fit framework.

4. Submit

Submit the scorecard, constructive author comments and any confidential editorial concerns.

Reviewer reports are normally due within 14 days unless the invitation specifies otherwise.

Eleven scorecard criteria

Criterion	Priority	What to assess
Scope nexus	Mandatory	Real implementation/governance contribution, not decorative sustainability terms
Originality / contribution	Mandatory	International contribution and scholarly importance
Relationship to literature	Required	Critical grounding and related evidence
Method	Mandatory	Appropriateness, validation, reproducibility
Evidence	Mandatory	Support for claims, uncertainty, sensitivity and limitations
Transferability	Strongly required	Mechanisms and lessons beyond a descriptive local case
Outcome relevance	Strongly required	Performance, trade-offs, failure and learning
Governance / implementation insight	Core JSGI criterion	Delivery, regulation, finance, accountability and capacity mechanisms
Implications	Required where relevant	Policy, research, practice or societal implications supported by results
Integrity / transparency	Mandatory	Ethics, data, code, AI disclosure and competing interests
Quality of communication	Required	Clarity, coherence and international accessibility

Where numeric ratings are used, the suggested scale is 1 = major deficiency to 5 = outstanding. Scores support, but never replace, the written assessment.

Recommendations and report structure

Recommendations: Accept, Minor revisions, Major revisions or Reject. The written report should explain strengths and major/minor concerns, give feasible revision suggestions, and avoid coercive citations.

Confidentiality requirements

Keep unpublished manuscripts, review materials, identities and editorial correspondence confidential.
Do not contact authors directly about integrity concerns.
Do not upload confidential material to public AI services or unapproved third-party tools.
Use a separate confidential field for possible fabrication, manipulation, duplicate publication or other integrity issues.
Do not exploit unpublished research for personal or professional advantage.

Source: JSGI Reviewer Guide (6 pages). Reviewers should follow the current instructions and their individual invitation requirements.