Reviewer Guidelines

The International Journal of Traditional Knowledge (IJTK) values the expertise and commitment of peer reviewers to ensure the quality, integrity, and cultural sensitivity of published articles. These guidelines outline the responsibilities and expectations for reviewers.

1. Role of Reviewers

   Reviewers are expected to:

   • Provide an objective, constructive, and timely evaluation of manuscripts
   • Assess the scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, cultural sensitivity, and ethical compliance of the work
   • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement
   • Recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected
2. Review Criteria

   Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts on the following dimensions:

   • A. Scientific Quality
     • Originality and novelty of the research question
     • Soundness of methodology and appropriateness of data analysis
     • Clarity and logical structure of arguments
   • B. Relevance & Contribution
     • Relevance to traditional knowledge systems (TKS) and interdisciplinary discourse
     • Contribution to preservation, innovation, or application of TKS
     • Engagement with global sustainability, health, cultural, or ecological challenges
   • C. Ethical & Cultural Sensitivity
     • Respectful representation of indigenous knowledge, practices, and communities
     • Evidence of informed consent and community acknowledgement, where applicable
     • Compliance with Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)and intellectual property safeguards
     • Avoidance of exploitative or extractive approaches
   • D. Presentation & Clarity
     • Organization, language, and readability
     • Adequacy of citations and references
     • Appropriateness of figures, tables, and supplementary materials
3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
   • Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as confidential. Do not share or discuss with others without editorial consent.
   • Conflict of Interest: Decline review if there is any personal, financial, or academic conflict of interest with the authors or topic
   • Constructive Feedback: Provide respectful, clear, and actionable comments. Avoid derogatory or biased language
   • Timeliness: Submit reviews within the agreed deadline. Notify the editor promptly if a delay is unavoidable
   • Acknowledgment of Sources: Alert editors if you detect plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or failure to credit indigenous knowledge sources
4. Review Process
   • Reviews are conducted double-blind (reviewers and authors remain anonymous)
   • The typical timeline for review is 3–4 weeks. Extensions may be granted on request
   • Reviewers are asked to provide:
     • Major comments (conceptual, methodological, or ethical issues).
     • Minor comments (presentation, clarity, references).
     • A clear recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject