Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is central to ensuring the quality, credibility, and integrity of the Journal of Sustainable Finance (JSF). This guide outlines the ethical responsibilities, expectations, and procedures for reviewers participating in the journal’s double-blind peer review process.

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to:

Maintaining high scholarly standards in sustainable finance and related disciplines
Strengthening methodological rigor, clarity, and theoretical contribution of manuscripts
Supporting fair, objective, and timely editorial decisions
Providing constructive feedback to improve academic and practical relevance

Reviews should aim to improve the manuscript, regardless of the final decision.

2. Review Model

JSF operates a double-blind peer review system:

Reviewers do not know the identity of authors
Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
All manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential

3. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept only if:

The manuscript aligns with their expertise (e.g., ESG, green finance, climate finance, sustainable investment, banking, fintech)
They can complete the review within the assigned timeframe (usually 2–3 weeks)
No conflict of interest exists

Conflicts of interest include:

Recent collaboration with the author(s)
Institutional affiliation with the author(s)
Financial, personal, or professional relationships affecting impartiality

If a conflict exists, reviewers must decline the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

Reviewers must:

Treat manuscripts as strictly confidential documents
Not share or discuss manuscript content with others
Not use manuscript content for personal or academic gain
Not upload manuscripts to AI tools or external platforms
Delete files after completing the review process

5. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, fair, and unbiased evaluations
Avoid personal, discriminatory, or unprofessional comments
Identify ethical issues such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or research misconduct
Alert editors to any suspected ethical violations

6. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must NOT:

Upload manuscripts to AI tools or external systems
Use AI-generated text to produce review reports

Reviewers MAY:

Use their own academic judgment and expertise
Use reference tools for citation verification without sharing manuscript content

All reviews must be fully human-authored.

7. What Reviewers Should Evaluate

7.1 Relevance and Scope

Is the manuscript aligned with sustainable finance, ESG, or related areas?
Does it contribute to JSF’s interdisciplinary focus?

7.2 Originality and Contribution

Does the study provide novel insights into sustainable finance?
Are policy, environmental, or financial implications clearly articulated?

7.3 Literature and Theory

Is the literature review current, relevant, and well-structured?
Is the theoretical framework appropriate and clearly justified?

7.4 Methodology

Is the research design appropriate and robust?
Are data sources, sampling, and analytical methods clearly explained?
Is the study replicable and transparent?

7.5 Results and Discussion

Are findings clearly presented and logically interpreted?
Do results link to sustainability, financial theory, or policy implications?

7.6 Conclusions and Implications

Are conclusions supported by evidence?
Are financial, environmental, or policy implications meaningful and actionable?

7.7 Presentation and Clarity

Is the manuscript well-organised and clearly written?
Are tables, figures, and visuals appropriate and informative?

8. Structure of the Review Report

A. Summary

Brief overview of the manuscript and its main contribution

B. Major Comments

Key issues related to theory, methodology, analysis, or contribution

C. Minor Comments

Suggestions on clarity, formatting, language, or presentation

All feedback should be specific, constructive, and actionable.

9. Recommendation Options

Reviewers should select one of the following:

Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject

Recommendations must align with written comments.

10. Tone and Professionalism

Reviews should be:

Constructive and respectful
Objective and evidence-based
Focused on improving the manuscript
Supportive even when recommending rejection

11. Timeliness