Reviewer Guidelines

Ethics in Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to contribute to the improvement and qualification of the manuscript for publication.

The journal uses a double-blind peer review system.

Ethical Principles for Reviewers

  • Self-assessment: Reviewers should assess whether they have adequate knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript;
  • Punctuality: Notify the editorial team if unable to complete the review or meet the deadline;
  • Confidentiality: Do not disclose the manuscript or its contents to anyone outside the editorial process;
  • Recognition: Identify and mention key references missing from the manuscript or unreferenced ideas that are not original to the authors;
  • Conflict of interest: Do not accept to review manuscripts where there is a conflict of interest or competition;
  • Non-disclosure: Do not use or share unpublished content without the authors’ express permission;
  • Competence: Ensure comments are clear, detailed, and objective;
  • Anonymity: Only review anonymized manuscripts;
  • No direct communication: Do not contact the authors directly without the editorial team’s permission;
  • Responsibility: Report any suspicion of ethical violations or irregularities;
  • Anti-plagiarism: Notify the editorial team of any signs of plagiarism;
  • Constructive feedback: Reviews should always aim to support and encourage authors toward publication;
  • Specificity: Be specific and objective in your feedback;
  • Honesty: Provide honest, straightforward, and unambiguous assessments to support your recommendation;
  • Respect for style: Respect the author’s voice and style, within the journal’s established standards;
  • Scientific basis: All suggestions should be supported by valid academic or scientific reasoning.

Reviewer Acknowledgment

Authors who have received feedback through peer review to improve their submissions should consider becoming reviewers and contributing to the editorial work of academic journals.

This journal acknowledges its reviewers through issuance of an ad hoc review certificate, publication of reviewer names on the journal's website, and formal thank-you letters sent by mail.

Review Criteria

The purpose of the review is to support the improvement of the manuscript for publication. The reviewer’s approach should aim at enhancing the quality of the work, rather than simply labeling or policing it.

Reviews must be completed using a specific form appropriate to the type of submission. At the end of the review process, the reviewer will provide a recommendation. Possible recommendations include:

  • Accept: The manuscript should be accepted in its current form with no revisions;
  • Accept with mandatory revisions: The manuscript should be accepted, provided the authors implement specific corrections. A new review round is not required;
  • Resubmit for review: The reviewer provides feedback aimed at improving the manuscript. After the authors revise the work, it will undergo a new round of review;
  • Submit to another journal: The reviewer recommends submitting the manuscript to a different journal, either because it falls outside this journal’s scope or does not meet the minimum standards;
  • Reject: The manuscript should not be accepted. The reviewer must justify this recommendation based on the evaluation criteria in the review form.

All manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two reviewers for peer review. While reviewer recommendations are important, the final decision rests with the editor, who may accept or override them.

Review Form

Use the following link to view and download the review form.