Review Guidelines

Review Guidelines

 

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and timely peer review process. Reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. These guidelines outline the expectations, ethical responsibilities, and evaluation criteria for reviewers.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review ensures that manuscripts:

  • Meet standards of academic excellence
  • Demonstrate originality and scientific rigor
  • Provide meaningful contributions to the field
  • Adhere to ethical research and publication practices

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback that assists editors in decision-making and helps authors improve their work.

Reviewer Responsibilities

1. Maintain Confidentiality
All manuscripts and associated materials must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use manuscript content for personal advantage.

2. Provide Objective and Constructive Feedback
Reviews should be professional, unbiased, and focused on the academic merits of the work. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

3. Declare Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest (financial, professional, institutional, or personal) that could influence their evaluation.

4. Assess Ethical Compliance
Reviewers should identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, unethical research practices, or improper authorship.

5. Adhere to Timelines
Reviewers should submit their evaluations within the agreed review period. If unable to meet deadlines, reviewers must inform the editorial office promptly.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts based on the following:

  • Originality and Novelty
  • Scientific / Methodological Rigor
  • Relevance and Contribution
  • Clarity and Organization
  • Validity of Results and Conclusions
  • Literature and References
  • Ethical Standards

Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports into:

  • Summary of the Manuscript
  • Major Comments (substantive issues)
  • Minor Comments (clarifications, formatting, language)
  • Recommendation
  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Ethical Expectations

  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit
  • Avoid discriminatory or biased language
  • Refrain from requesting citation of their own work unless genuinely relevant
  • Not use unpublished material without permission

Editorial Decision Process

Editorial decisions are based on reviewer evaluations, editorial judgment, and the journal’s standards. The editor may:

  • Accept the manuscript
  • Request revisions
  • Reject the manuscript