Reviewer instructions

Thank you for contributing to the peer-review process of the International Journal of Disaster Risk Management (IJDRM). Your expertise and careful assessment are essential for ensuring the publication of high-quality, trustworthy research.

Key principles for reviewers
• Confidentiality and anonymity: IJDRM applies a double-blind peer-review process. Do not disclose your identity to the authors and do not discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial team. Manuscript files and review content must be treated as confidential.
• Ethical responsibilities: If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, redundant publication, unethical research practices, or any other ethical concern, please inform the editor in the Confidential Comments to the Editor section. Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed immediately.
• Objectivity and constructive feedback: Reviews should be fair, evidence-based, and free of bias. Please provide professional, specific, and constructive feedback that helps authors improve the manuscript.
• Evaluation criteria: Please focus on originality, methodological rigor, clarity, scientific significance, relevance to disaster risk management, and the contribution to the field.

English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine / minor spelling check required
( ) I do not feel qualified to assess the English language and style

Overall assessment (tick one option in each row)

Good | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable

  1. Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include relevant references? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  2. Is the research design appropriate? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  3. Are the methods adequately described? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  4. Are the results clearly presented? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  5. Are the conclusions supported by the results? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  6. Originality and significance of the study ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  7. Quality and clarity of tables and figures ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  8. Relevance and currency of cited references ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  9. Ethical standards and compliance (e.g., approvals, consent, transparency) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

  10. Overall readability and logical flow ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Detailed review and recommendations

  1. Strengths of the paper
    Provide a brief summary of the manuscript’s main strengths.

  2. Areas for improvement
    List specific areas that need improvement, with clear and concrete suggestions.

  3. Specific recommendations for the authors
    Provide actionable recommendations (e.g., what to add, remove, clarify, re-structure, or re-analyze).

Decision recommendation (select one)
☐ Accept
☐ Accept with minor revisions
☐ Major revisions required (resubmission required)
☐ Reject

Additional comments on language, clarity, and readability (optional)

Confidential comments to the editor (if any)
Use this section to flag ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism, conflicts of interest, authorship issues, serious methodological flaws, or any information that should not be shared with the authors.

Reviewer’s declaration
By submitting this review, I confirm that:
• I have disclosed any conflicts of interest (or I have no conflicts of interest).
• I have provided a fair, objective, and evidence-based assessment.
• I have followed ethical peer-review standards and maintained confidentiality.