The Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) expects reviewers to conduct peer review objectively, fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with recognized standards of publication ethics. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on their scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, clarity, and contribution to the field.

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should ensure that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and that they can complete the review within the requested timeframe. Reviewers should decline the assignment if they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss the manuscript or its contents with others without prior authorization from the editor. Unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal research, professional advantage, or any other purpose.

Reviews should be conducted independently and objectively. Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on its academic and methodological merits rather than the authors' identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, personal characteristics, or academic status. Comments should be clear, specific, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, hostile remarks, or unsupported judgments should be avoided.

Reviewers should consider the following aspects when evaluating a manuscript:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of JODESMA.
• Originality and significance of the research contribution.
• Clarity of the research objectives and research questions.
• Adequacy and relevance of the literature review.
• Appropriateness of the research methodology.
• Clarity and reproducibility of methodological procedures.
• Validity of mathematical models, algorithms, computational procedures, or analytical techniques, where applicable.
• Adequacy of data, criteria, variables, assumptions, and experimental design.
• Accuracy and clarity of the results.
• Appropriateness of comparisons, validation, sensitivity analysis, or robustness analysis, where applicable.
• Consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions.
• Recognition of research limitations.
• Quality and relevance of references.
• Overall clarity, organization, and scholarly presentation.

Reviewers should distinguish between major and minor concerns. Major concerns are issues that may substantially affect the validity, originality, methodology, interpretation, or contribution of the manuscript.

Minor concerns may include terminology, presentation, formatting, typographical errors, unclear statements, or other issues that do not fundamentally affect the study.

Reviewers should provide sufficient explanation for substantive recommendations. A recommendation should be supported by the comments provided in the review report. Reviewers should not request changes merely because the manuscript differs from their own methodological preferences, theoretical perspective, or research approach, provided that the authors' approach is appropriately justified.

Reviewers may recommend additional references when those references are directly relevant and would improve the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Citation recommendations must not be used to increase the reviewer's own citation count, promote the reviewer's publications without legitimate scholarly justification, or require unnecessary citations.

Reviewers should report any concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image manipulation, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship concerns, or other potential breaches of research or publication ethics to the editor.

Reviewers should not contact or confront the authors directly regarding suspected misconduct.

Reviewers should not use generative artificial intelligence or other external automated systems to process, upload, analyze, or generate an assessment of confidential manuscript content where this could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or the integrity of the peer-review process. Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their review.

Reviewers should complete their reports within the agreed deadline. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editorial office as soon as possible. If they are unable to complete the review, they should decline the assignment promptly rather than delay the editorial process.

The reviewer should normally structure the review report by addressing the manuscript's overall contribution, major issues, minor issues, and specific recommendations for improvement. The review should provide useful guidance to the authors while also giving the editor sufficient information to make an informed editorial decision.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not determine the final editorial decision. The editor may consider multiple reviewer reports, seek additional expert opinions, request revisions, or make an editorial decision based on the overall quality, integrity, relevance, and suitability of the manuscript.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the previous review round. Reviewers should avoid introducing unrelated requirements unless they are necessary to address issues affecting the quality, validity, or integrity of the manuscript.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers acknowledge their responsibility to uphold confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and professional conduct throughout the peer-review process.