Review Policy

Reviewers should meet the following policies of review:

AI-generated review

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated or assisted review comments are strictly prohibited during peer review.

Confidentiality and ethics

• Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the information of the articles they review.
• They should act ethically and disclose any conflicts of interest to the editor.

Qualifications and expertise

• Reviewers should possess qualifications and expertise relevant to the research field of the assigned article.
• They are expected to provide feedback based on their knowledge and relevant expertise.

Reasonable review time

• Reviewers are expected to provide assessments within a reasonable time frame and in accordance with the deadlines set by the editor.
• If unable to complete the review within the specified time, it is expected to inform the editor in advance.

Thoroughness and clarity

• Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and in-depth reviews of the articles.
• They are expected to justify and support any suggestions or decisions they make.

Identification of plagiarism

• Reviewers are expected to identify potential plagiarism and report it if detected.
• They must ensure that all references and sources are cited correctly.

Openness and transparency

• Reviewers should be transparent about their perspectives and evaluation approaches.
• They are expected to provide comments that are constructive and solution-oriented.

Disagreement or dispute

• If reviewers disagree with the assessment or editorial decisions, they should express these differences of opinion politely and academically.
• Editors are expected to manage conflicts and disagreements wisely.

Professional development

• Reviewers should continuously improve their skills through training and ongoing learning.
• They should maintain integrity and high standards in performing their reviewing duties.

Effective communication

• If revisions are needed, reviewers are expected to provide clear guidance and facilitate effective communication with authors.
• They should be ready to provide additional explanations or clarifications if necessary.

Competing Interests of Review

When submitting their review, the peer reviewers of this journal will be asked to declare whether or not they have Competing Interest with the article that they reviewed. This what we called CI Declaration is a mandatory step to be taken in order to ensure the objectivity of their review.

What is Competing Interest or also known as Conflict of Interest?
COPE defines as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research articles submitted to this journal. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Although due to the blind peer review process, it is hard to identify Personal CI.

Financial competing of interest:
 Could you profit or be negatively impacted financially by the submitted research?

Personal competing of interest:
 Do you have a personal relationship with the authors?
 Are you and the authors rivals or competitors?

Professional competing of interest:
 Have you recently worked at the same institution or organization as the authors?
 Have you or are you currently collaborating with the authors?
 Have you published with the authors during the last 5 years?
 Do you or have you held grants with the authors?

If a peer-reviewer is agree to review a manuscript, they will need to evaluate the competing interests questions above once they have access to all of the submission files. Accordingly, they will need to declare whether they have competing interest or not with the article when submitting their review via the OJS.