• Thursday, 22 October , 2020

Reviewing Process


       We consider that one of the main objectives of the peer review system is to improve the quality of a candidate’s manuscript. The Editorial Board ensures that submitted material is the subject for a peer review by anonymous independent experts.
       Submitted article is first put under consideration to decide whether a given article fits into the area of the journal thematic, then article is sent to reviewers for further approval to two leading experts in the field. The names of the authors and reviewers and their affiliation are not shown to each other.
      The manuscript received for the publication is treated as a confidential document. The article is not shown to other parties or discussed with them except those authorized by the editor. The editorial staff must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than a corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher. The unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editors’ own researches without the express written consent of the authors. Reviewers are required to remain confidential and not to disclose information about or from the article under review to an unauthorized person.
      In case of any conflict of interests (self-interest, personal animosity, financial or scientific conflicts, etc), the reviewers must immediately inform the Editorial Board about it. If such a conflict is recognized, the reviewer is excluded from the review process and another reviewer is assigned.
      Any selected referee, who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and exclude himself from the review process.
      The factors that are taken into account while reviewing are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and an adequate language style.
      We strongly advise that a negative evaluation review should explain the weaknesses of the manuscript, so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of the rejection and improve the manuscript on the ground of those comments.
      The reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editor's discretion). We believe in a constructive criticism. The criticism of the author’s personality is inappropriate.
      The reviewers’ comments should be sufficiently informative and helpful for the editorial decision to be reached. The authors should not confuse straight forward and true comments with an unfair criticism as well.
      The reviewers should indicate the relevant published works that have not been cited by the author. A reviewer should also attract the editor's attention to any substantial similarities or overlaps among the manuscripts under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
      The reviews should be made objectively. The referees should express their views clearly along with presenting the supporting arguments. It is expected that the reviewers should suggest the authors how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable.
      With the help of the reviewers’ comments a final decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) is taken and sent to the corresponding author.
      Reviewers must present an expertise of the manuscript, usually within 10 days.