For Reviewers

Information for Reviewers

Peer review is a leading factor utilized for enhancement of high quality scientific researches. Here are some guidelines which will result in facilitating peer reviewing as a necessary element of the paper publication progression. The invitation letter will be sent including information about the title and abstract of the manuscript along with the time limit expected for review. Following reviewer acceptance, the manuscript will be accessible to reviewer through his or her registration. Reviewers have access to the comments of other referees too. Reviewers will assess the novelty and technical accuracy of the paper first draft. The core characteristics of review will include:

• The advancement of presented work over previous works.
• Comments on the work and the reasons for them.
• Expression of strengths and weaknesses of the work, figures and statistical methods used for interpretation of data, and indication of supplementary information.
• Presentation of literature review.
• Consideration of due audience.

Please take a look at following ethical guidelines provided by COPE for editors and reviewers, too:
Flowcharts show how unethical papers are behaved
Redundant (duplicate) publication in submitted manuscript and published article
Suspected plagiarism in submitted manuscript and published article
Suspected fabricated data in submitted manuscript and published article
See more

Online review

All process of manuscript submission and review is carried out online. Upon acceptance of invitation for manuscript review, s/he needs to register in website as the reviewer and then will be given access to download the entire manuscript. After reviewer, s/he may put his/her comments anew on website. After submitting his/her review, s/he will get access to other reviewers’ comments, too.

Comments to the reviewers

• Special comments on the manuscripts could be sent to editors if they are inappropriate to be declared to authors.
• The comments sent to editors should be in consistency level with those sent to authors.
• Reviewers should observe that the author(s) have followed the instructions for authors, editorial policies and publication ethics.
• Reviewers should also observe that the report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript
• In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:

- Originality

- Contribution to the field

- Technical quality

- Clarity of presentation

- Depth of research

• A review in dedicated time will benefit the entire scientific community.
• The manuscripts should be reviewed impartially and objectively.
• Reviewers should decline refereeing the manuscripts that are in the area of interest of the reviewer, are the financial interest of him or her,  are in a field that reviewer is now working on, or if the reviewer has contacted the author recently. This information is uttered in the “request for review” e-mail sent to reviewer; otherwise after receiving the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the editor in order to inhibit subjective reviewing.
• Information in manuscripts should be held confidential till the time of publication.
• Reviewers should not use unpublished information in manuscripts as a resource in their researches.
• In the case of accepting reviewing a manuscript, this is a request of the reviewers to re-review the future revisions of the manuscript. Of course, reviewing revisions will be handled by editorial board as it is possible in order to restrict extra burden on reviewers.
• Identity of reviewers should not be declared to authors.