Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are obliged to provide the editor with a professional, well-argued, impartial assessment of the scientific value of the manuscript within the specified deadlines.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts regarding the alignment of the manuscript's topic with the journal's scope, the relevance of the research area and applied methods, the originality and scientific significance of the data presented, the style of scientific presentation, and the adequacy of the manuscript's scientific apparatus.

A reviewer who has well-founded doubts or knowledge of ethical violations by the authors must inform the editor. Reviewers should indicate important published works that the authors have not cited. If a reviewer is aware of significant similarities or overlaps with a published work or a manuscript currently under review, they are obliged to report it. Similarly, if a reviewer knows that the same manuscript is being considered by multiple journals simultaneously, they must inform the editor.

Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the authors or funders of the research. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer is obliged to immediately inform the editor.

If the reviewer considers themselves incompetent in the subject or field addressed by the manuscript, they must inform the editor.

Reviews must be objective. Comments concerning the personal characteristics of the authors are considered inappropriate. Reviewer judgments must be clear and supported by arguments.

Manuscripts sent to reviewers are considered confidential documents. Reviewers must not use unpublished material from the manuscripts for their own research without the explicit written consent of the authors, and all information and ideas presented in the submitted manuscripts must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.