Before  agreeing to review for a journal, it is your professional responsibility to consider the following:

1. Are you aware of, and able to follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers? Please read the ethical guidelines outlined below.
2. Do you understand the type of peer review used by the journal?
3. Are you aware of how to submit your review? In the Mathematical Culture and Thought, you will complete a form online which   consists of structured questions and  free text boxes.
4. Do you have any conflicts of interest? If so, make the editor aware immediately.
5. Can you complete the review in the allotted time? If you  are unlikely to be able to meet the deadline, please let the editor know, so that he/she can inform the author.

Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted. They should judge each manuscript on its own merits, without regard to the race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. This includes any relationship with the author(s) that might bias their review.

Reviewers must keep the confidentiality of the peer review process. They must not share information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process without the explicit permission of the editor.

They must not enter unpublished manuscript files, images or information into databases or tools that do not guarantee confidentiality, are accessible by the public and/or that can store or use this information for their own purposes (e.g., generative AI tools such as ChatGPT).

Reviewers must prepare their report by themselves, unless they have permission from the journal to involve another person. They must also not impersonate others during the review process.

Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence tools to generate manuscript review reports, including LLM based tools like ChatGPT.

Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report. Reviewers are responsible for ensuring any references included within their report are accurate and verifiable.

Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be interpreted as questioning any person’s reputation.

Reviewers should make every  reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation on time. They should inform the editor if this is not possible.

Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.