Guide for Reviewers

Reviewers constitute an essential component in preserving the scientific value of the journal and enhancing the quality of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to adopt an objective and scholarly approach, providing authors with constructive guidance for the improvement of their work.

Duties and Responsibilities:

  1. Manuscript Evaluation:

    • Reviewers should carefully examine the manuscripts assigned to them, assessing their scientific content and methodology in order to determine their overall quality.

    • During evaluation, attention should be given to the originality of the manuscript, its relationship with the existing literature, the research methodology employed, and the validity of the findings.

    • Reviewers should use a constructive, clear, and objective tone when providing written feedback to authors.

  2. Impartiality and Independence:

    • Reviewers must remain impartial throughout the review process and notify the editorial board immediately in case of any conflict of interest.

    • Reviewers should evaluate only those manuscripts that fall within their specific areas of academic expertise.

  3. Confidentiality and Ethical Principles:

    • Reviewers must adhere to the principle of confidentiality during the evaluation process and must not use any information obtained from the manuscript for personal or other purposes.

    • Reviewers should be attentive to ethical compliance and promptly report any detected plagiarism or ethical misconduct to the editors.

  4. Revision and Correction Suggestions:

    • Reviewers should evaluate the revisions made to a manuscript and verify how the authors have addressed previous reviewer comments.

    • During the revision process, reviewers should clearly express the required amendments and improvements.

International Principles and Standards:

  1. Double-Blind Review: Reviewers must not have access to any information regarding the author’s identity.

  2. Objective Assessment: Reviews should be conducted solely on the basis of academic criteria, free from personal bias or subjective opinion.

  3. Ethical Evaluation: Reviewers must immediately report any detected ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, conflict of interest, etc.).