A reviewer of a scientific paper must hold a doctoral degree.
The journal employs a semi-blind peer review process.
The peer review standards established for scientific journals adhere to internationally recognized academic review principles.
Peer Review Process
The reviewer should begin by familiarizing themselves with the paper and any accompanying files, as well as reviewing the peer review guidelines, ethical standards, and formatting instructions.
Confidentiality – The reviewer must respect the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from using any information obtained during the review for personal gain, to benefit others, or to discredit the authors. The reviewer must not involve other individuals in the review process (including researchers under their supervision) unless explicitly authorized by the editorial board. Any individuals who contribute to the review process must be properly acknowledged for their service.
Ethical Violations
If the reviewer identifies any form of unethical conduct by the authors in relation to research or publication, they must inform the editorial board.
Review Report Preparation
Format – The reviewer must follow the journal's guidelines for writing and formatting the review. The review should be objective and constructive, aiming to help the author improve their work. Additionally, the reviewer should provide critical comments in a principled manner, supported by relevant arguments that justify their assessments. This will assist the editorial board in making a fair evaluation of the manuscript. The reviewer must maintain professionalism and refrain from negative, accusatory statements, personal remarks, or unfounded allegations.
Appropriate Feedback – The editorial board requires a fair, honest, and impartial assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. The reviewer must ensure that their feedback to both the author and the editorial board is consistent. Confidential comments submitted to the editorial board should not include defamatory or baseless accusations. The primary goal of the review is to help authors improve their manuscripts. Therefore, the reviewer should be constructive, clear, and sincere in their assessments.
Language and Style – While providing feedback on improvements and corrections is important, if the manuscript contains excessive linguistic errors and editorial issues, the reviewer should not focus on language corrections. Instead, they should indicate this issue in the review form. It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure their work meets high academic writing standards. The reviewer’s primary task is to assess the content of the manuscript, not to spend time on grammatical revisions. The review should be written in clear and accessible language without unnecessary complexity or obscure terminology to ensure broad readability.
Suggestions for Additional Work – The reviewer's role is to assess the quality of the manuscript’s content. If the paper lacks clarity and requires further analysis, the reviewer should indicate this in their comments. However, the reviewer should avoid requesting expansions beyond the paper’s original scope. Any recommendations for additional research should be clearly justified as necessary for strengthening the manuscript’s arguments and claims.
The reviewer must refrain from requesting the authors to cite their own or their colleagues' work solely to increase citation counts. Such suggestions should be based on well-founded academic and technological reasons.
Accountability
The reviewer must prepare the report independently. Exceptions apply only if the reviewer has received prior approval from the journal’s editorial board to seek assistance from another individual in preparing the review.