Guidedance for Reviewer

1. Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality, academic integrity, and credibility of the journal. Reviewers are expected to conduct evaluations in an objective, professional, constructive, and timely manner.

2. Ethical Principles of Peer Review

Reviewers are required to:

  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts under review;

  • Act independently and without bias;

  • Avoid and disclose any potential conflicts of interest;

  • Refrain from using any part of the manuscript for personal benefit;

  • Comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

3. Scope of Review

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the following aspects:

3.1. Relevance and Scientific Contribution

  • The relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s aims and scope;

  • The originality (novelty) and contribution to the relevant field of study.

3.2. Quality of Scientific Content

  • Clarity of the research problem formulation and research objectives;

  • Appropriateness of the research methodology;

  • Validity and reliability of the data;

  • Adequacy of the analysis and discussion in addressing the research objectives

3.3. Structure and Presentation

  • Organization and structure of the manuscript;

  • Clarity of language and use of scientific terminology;

  • Quality of tables, figures, and graphs.

3.4. References and Citations

  • Adequacy and currency of the references;

  • Consistency between in-text citations and the reference list;

  • Relevance of the cited sources.

4. Publication Ethics Assessment

Reviewers are requested to identify any potential issues related to:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication;

  • Data fabrication or manipulation;

  • Violations of research ethics;

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

If any suspected ethical misconduct is identified, reviewers must not contact the authors directly but are required to report the matter to the editor.

5. Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision;

  • Reject.

Each recommendation must be supported by clear, constructive, and scientifically sound justifications.

6. Submission of Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments are expected to be:

  • Constructive and courteous;

  • Focused on the scientific content;

  • Clear, specific, and actionable;

  • Free from personal, inappropriate, or offensive language.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Review Process

Reviewers are not permitted to upload manuscripts to AI systems or external platforms that may store, retain, or distribute data.

The use of AI is allowed only in a limited manner for the following purposes:

  • Assisting with language checking;

  • Supporting general analysis, provided that confidentiality is not compromised.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content and integrity of their review reports.

8. Review Timeline

Reviewers are expected to complete the review process within the timeframe specified by the editor. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they are requested to promptly inform the editor.

9. Compliance and Integrity

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers confirm their willingness to comply with these guidelines and to uphold the principles of publication ethics and scientific integrity.

10. Ethical References

These guidelines are developed based on the following references:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;

  • Scopus Content Selection & Advisory Board (CSAB);

  • National Standards for the Accreditation of Scientific Journals.