Reviewers are required to provide written, competent and unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the manuscript. The reviewers assess manuscript for the compliance with the profile of the journal, the relevance of the investigated topic and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance of information presented in the manuscript, the presentation style and scholarly apparatus.
Reviewers should alert the Editor to any well-founded suspicions or the knowledge of possible violations of ethical standards by the authors. Reviewers should recognize relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors and alert the Editor to substantial similarities between a reviewed manuscript and any manuscript published or under consideration for publication elsewhere, in the event they are aware of such. Reviewers should also alert the Editor to a parallel submission of the same paper to another journal, in the event they are aware of such.
Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. reviewers must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts without the express written consent of the authors. The information and ideas presented in submitted manuscripts shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
The submitted manuscripts are subject to a peer review process. The purpose of peer review is to assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving the paper.
A manuscript goes through the peer review process - Double-blind peer-review. Double-blind peer review mean that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There have to be at least two reviewers. The typical period of time allowed for reviews: 6 weeks. Note: Can be modified during the editorial process.
The choice of reviewers is at the editors' discretion. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors' own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors. Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay. Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Every article will be review under two independently reviewers. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
All of the reviewers of a paper act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editor may assign additional reviewers.
During the review process Editor may require authors to provide additional information (including raw data) if they are necessary for the evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript. These materials shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain. The Editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned
All scientific articles are subject to mandatory review. Two reviewers from relevant scientific field are provided for each article, and both are anonymous. The authors' names are also anonymous to the reviewers.
If the reviewers give a positive review to the article, they put it into one of the following categories:
Original scientific paper represents an original scientific work in which the new results of a fundamental or applied research are presented. This paper is written in such a way, so that on the basis of the presented information we may:
- reproduce a methodological and computational procedure, on the basis of the obtained results with the same accuracy or within the bounded degrees of freedom, as the author himself states, or
- repeat the author's observations and judge his analysis, or
- check the accuracy of analyses and deductions on which the author's findings are based.
Preliminary communication represents a scientific paper which must include one or more scientific information, but without sufficient detail to enable a reader to check the presented scientific knowledge.
Conference paper represents a comprehensive paper that was previously presented at a scientific meeting, but as a complete paper was not published in the Proceedings of the scientific meeting.
Review paper presents a particular problem of which the scientific paper has already been published, but with a new approach.
Professional paper contains useful addenda from the profession and for the profession.
PAPER TEMPLATE (Word Document)