Reviewers rules

We relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles. Whether you’re an experienced reviewer or interested in reviewing for the first time, we invite you to explore these pages.

If the selected reviewer is not sure that his/her qualification corresponds to the level of studies presented in the manuscript, than he/she should immediately return the manuscript. Reviewers should not consider the manuscripts in case they have conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, joint, or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations related to the present work. The reviewer should objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and consider the extent to which work meets high scientific and writing standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors. The reviewer should consider the possibility of conflicts of interest in case when the manuscript is closely related to the current or already published work by reviewer. When in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without reviewing, pointing to a conflict of interest. The reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript, with the author or co-author of which he/she has personal or professional ties, and if such relationships can affect the evaluation of the manuscript. Each manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be shown or discussed with third person who do not have that particular authority. The exception is when a reviewer needs someone’s special advice.
Reviewers must adequately explain and argue their opinions, so the editors and authors can understand the basis of reviewers’ comments. Any statement that observation, conclusion or argument has been previously published, must be accompanied by appropriate link. The reviewer should mark any cases of under-quoting of the other scientists’ works that are relevant to the work under review; at the same time  it should be borne in mind that comments on the lack of citation of reviewer’s own research can be considered as biased. The reviewer should point the Editor’s attention to any substantial similarity between this manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal. Reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable, reviewers should express their opinion reasonably clear and support with arguments. Reviewers should point out the significant published works relevant to the topic but not included in the bibliography of the manuscript.
A reviewer shall provide his/her feedback in a reasonable time. Unpublished data from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used for personal research without prior written permission by the author. Information or ideas obtained during the reviewing process and related to possible benefits, should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

We would be glad to have answered the questions.