Reviewer Guide

First of all we thank for your kind cooperation with our journal, herby we would like to inform you that due to the change in the journal's website, you must use a password reset once to enter the site.

If you do not receive a reset email, notify the journal’s office by phone or email so that a new password can be sent to you. All respected reviewers of the journal when entering their profile for the first time are kindly asked to carefully complete their personal information, especially organizational affiliation, ORCID ID, area of research interest(s), as well as their bank account information.

If an article submitted to you for review, is not fit in your research interest or you do not have the opportunity to review, be sure to inform us and introduce some alternative reviewers if possible.

When reviewing articles, please answer the questions on the reviewing form, and if you leave a comment on the file of the article, make sure that your name is not visible in the comments.

Publication Ethics for Reviewers

Fair Reviews: Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments and they should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers must provide substantiated and fair reviews to assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Right of Refusal: Any selected referees who feel unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review, should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process, and if they know any other expert reviewer(s) suggest them to the Editor-in-Chief via dedicated email/comments section in Reviewer Dashboard. Furthermore, Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts where they have provided written comments on the manuscript or an earlier version to the Author, and, in which they have any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, financial, institutional, personal, or other relationships or connections with any of the companies, institutions, or people connected to the papers.

Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the Editor-in-Chief, nor should they discuss any information from the manuscript without permission. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Conflict of Interest: Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.


Guide to review an article in this journal:

Publons guide:

How to create a Publons profile and get a Researcher ID

There are four simple ways to populate your review record on Publons:

- Add reviews performed for partnered journals. Reviews performed for partnered journals can be instantly added to your profile as you do them.

- Send review receipts to:   

- Enable auto-updates

- Add reviews through the forms on the site.