For reviewers

For reviewers

Peer review is an essential element of scholarly publication which serves two key functions:

(i)     It ensures proper verification of articles before publishing (assessing their validity, significance and originality to ensure only good research is published), and
(ii)   It improves the quality of the research by helping eliminate and correct inadvertent errors or to increase the quality of submitted papers.

The reviewers should accept an invitation to peer review a paper only if they are competent to review the article (the topic of the article is within their field of expertise). The reviewers should be aware of the fact that on average it takes about 5 hours to review a paper properly.

If a reviewer cannot conduct the review within the stipulated time limit, he or she shall let the editor know about the fact immediately, and if possible advise the editor of alternative reviewers or the alternative deadline.

In order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest the journal has implemented double-blind peer review process.

Reviewers shall not disclose information acquired in the review process.

Any recommendations made by a reviewer will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.

 A reviewer would be expected to evaluate the article according to the following criteria: to download a review form click PL     EN             

It is recommended to provide a quick summary of the article in your report to reassure the author and editor that you have understood the article. The review should be courteous, constructive and should provide insight into any deficiencies. In the event of an article being rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope, the reviewer should justify his opinion making sure that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind the comments. If the reviewer suggest revision, it should be indicated whether minor or major changes are required. Additionally, a reviewer should indicate to the editor whether or not he/she would be happy to review the revised article or whether it is up to the editor to check that the author has followed the reviewer’s instructions.