Review policy

 

1. Objectivity and Responsibility

To ensure an objective evaluation of all submitted manuscripts, each manuscript undergoes a peer-review process by at least two experts in the relevant field. Since the review process is a vital step in scientific publishing, every scientist is expected to participate in reviewing activities.

2. Competence and Withdrawal

If a selected reviewer does not feel qualified to evaluate the research presented in a manuscript, they must return the manuscript to the editor immediately.

3. Evaluation Standards

A reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, including the experimental and theoretical work, interpretation, and presentation. The reviewer should consider the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should remain vigilant regarding potential conflicts of interest, particularly when a manuscript is closely related to their own current or published work. In case of doubt, the reviewer must immediately return the manuscript to the editor without review, explicitly stating the conflict of interest.

5. Confidentiality

A manuscript submitted for review must be treated as a confidential document. It should not be shown to or discussed with others, except in specific cases where the reviewer requires specialized advice.

6. Justification of Feedback

Reviewers are required to adequately explain and justify their opinions so that editors and authors can understand the basis of their comments. Any claim that a conclusion, result, or argument has been previously published must be supported by a relevant citation or reference.

7. Citations and Plagiarism Detection

The reviewer should call attention to any instances of insufficient citation of work by other scientists. Furthermore, the reviewer must notify the editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any published article or manuscript submitted to another journal simultaneously.

8. Timeliness and Ethics

Reviewers must provide their feedback in a timely manner. They must not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the reviewed manuscript without the express consent of the author.

9. Double-Blind Peer Review

Our journal implements a double-blind peer review system (where both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous to each other). This process encourages authors to adhere to accepted standards and aims to prevent the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unsubstantiated claims, or personal biases. Peer review provides authors with an opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of their work. The review form is available at the bottom of the page.

10. Special Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to pay particular attention to:

• References: Adequate citation of previous work by researchers who laid the groundwork in the field.

• Abstract: Presence of a clear abstract (500–600 characters) that concisely summarizes the essence of the article.

• Author’s Contribution: Clear definition of the author’s original contribution.

---

KEY METRICS AND TIMELINES

• Average time to first decision: 4 weeks.

• Revision period: The corrected manuscript must be returned to the editor within 15 days after receiving the review. Otherwise, the editorial board may reject the article or postpone its publication.

• Average time from submission to online publication: 12 weeks.

• Acceptance rate: 76%.