After midwifery of manuscript in editorial staff, he is having double blind–peer review.
The Journal has duty to ensure fairly review. The reviewers shall be obligated to make the verification of manuscript by ethical and responsible way, who is accords to politic and demands of the journal. Is allowed the reviewers to provide confidential comments to editor of journal. Also, it is allowed to provide comments to the author(s). The journal may ask recommendations for adoption, reject of the manuscript. Each recommendation shall be in comply with comments in review.
Responsibilities of reviewer
The reviewer should contribute to improving the quality of the manuscript through objective analysis, providing an unbiased, constructive and detailed assessment of its scientific content.
The reviewer evaluates the manuscript confidentially. The manuscript is not disclosed or discussed with third parties.
The reviewer should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships between the reviewer and the author), alert the editor of this, and if necessary decline to review the manuscript.
The reviewer declares the presence or absence of a conflict of interest in a declaration that is attached to the review form, which the reviewer must complete to evaluate the manuscript submitted to him.
A reviewer should refuse to review a manuscript if it is determined that it is outside their competence. The same applies if this is identified in the manuscript review process.
The reviewer objectively evaluates the scientific value and qualities of the manuscript without allowing personal comments about the author or the manuscript.
Review criteria
The reviewer shall conduct an impact assessment based on the following criteria:
Is the article subject within the scope of the journal?
Are presented in article new and original facts and patterns?
Does the title give a clear and accurate picture for article content?
Does the abstract reflect concisely and clearly the main content and scientific contributions of article?
Are the keywords correctly selected?
Is the objective clearly stated? Is the objective consistent with the findings of the research?
Are the methods used clear and are they clearly presented?
Are the results clearly presented and analyzed?
Are the interpretations and conclusions correct and are they derived from the data?
Is it applied suitable statistic method?
Is it deep the discussion in accordance with contemporary state of the problem?
Are the graphical elements well-formed and are they present adequately in research?
Is the literature cited related to object of research and is she presented as required?
Overall assessment of article:
- The article may be published without any corrections.
- The article may be published with little corrections.
- The article may be published with big corrections.
- The article was rejected in its current form but can be send again.
- The article was rejected and cannot be send again.