1. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Manuscripts and their contents must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to third parties without authorization from the editorial team. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or their contents to generative artificial intelligence tools or other external platforms that may compromise confidentiality.

2. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers should provide constructive, impartial, and evidence-based assessments. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Comments and recommendations should focus on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, methodology, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential or actual conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the assignment and promptly inform the editorial office.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to assess the following aspects:

• Originality and significance of the research contribution;
• Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and research questions;
• Appropriateness of the theoretical framework and methodology;
• Accuracy and adequacy of legal analysis, evidence, and references;
• Coherence of the argumentation and organization of the manuscript;
• Compliance with relevant ethical and publication standards; and
• Quality of language, presentation, and overall scholarly contribution.

5. Identification of Research Misconduct

Reviewers should notify the editorial office if they identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate citations, or other forms of research misconduct. Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors regarding suspected misconduct.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers may use artificial intelligence tools only for limited language improvement, provided that confidentiality and intellectual property rights are fully protected. AI tools must not be used to generate substantive evaluations, replace the reviewer’s independent judgment, or process confidential manuscript content.

7. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified by the editorial office. If they are unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editor promptly. Reviewers should decline assignments when they lack the necessary expertise or cannot provide an objective assessment.

8. Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit for Further Review, or Reject. These recommendations serve as advisory input, while the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to uphold the principles of confidentiality, integrity, independence, fairness, and professional responsibility in accordance with the ethical standards of Systemia: Journal of Law, Technology and Governance and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).