Review Guidelines

General Responsibilities

  • Review Timeframe. All reviewers are expected to complete their review within 4 weeks of receiving the manuscript. Please inform the editorial office as early as possible if you require an extension.
  • Independence from AI Assistance. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to generate or assist review comments is strictly prohibited. All evaluations must reflect the reviewer’s personal scholarly judgment.
  • Novelty Clause. Manuscripts should not be rejected solely on the basis of “lack of novelty”, provided the work is scientifically robust and technically sound.
  • The manuscript and its contents must be treated as confidential. Do not share or discuss it with others without prior approval from the journal editor.
  • Constructive Feedback. Provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive feedback in a collegial tone. Criticism should aim to help authors improve the quality of their work.

Specific Review Instructions Based on the Review Form

  • Title Assessment. Evaluating the suitability and clarity of the article’s title. Reviewer suggests an alternative if it does not accurately reflect the content.
  • Abstract Evaluation. Assessing whether the abstract is comprehensive and informative. Reviewer suggests additions or deletions as necessary.
  • Scientific Validity. Confirming whether the manuscript is scientifically accurate, logically argued, and methodologically sound.
  • Evaluate whether the references are adequate, relevant, and up to date. You may suggest specific sources if necessary.
  • Language Quality. Assess whether the English language used is suitable for scholarly communication. Note any sections requiring revision.
  • Ethical Concerns. Identify and describe any ethical issues (e.g., informed consent, research on humans/animals, data privacy).
  • Competing Interests. Point out any conflict of interest that may influence the authors’ work or your ability to review impartially.
  • If plagiarism is suspected, provide evidence, such as links or comparisons, to support the claim.

Reviewer Declaration

At the end of the review, reviewer declares the own competing interests. If none, write:
“I declare that I have no competing interest as a reviewer.”

Scoring and Recommendation

Reviewer should use the objective evaluation scale (0–10) in Review Form to assess the manuscript:

  • > 9–10: Accept as it is
  • > 8–9: Minor Revision
  • > 7–8: Major Revision
  • > 5–7: Serious Major Revision
  • > 3–5: Rejected (repairable)
  • > 0–3: Strongly Rejected (irreparable)

Reviewer provides your overall mark and a brief justification for your recommendation.