ISSN (Online): xxxx-xxxx
Latest Issue: Volume 2, Number 1 (2017)
We consider manuscript refereeing as a highly-regarded and honorable service to the readers and to the scientific community at large. Reviewers play a pivotal role not only in helping to evaluate individual manuscript but also in determining the overall quality of the journal. Therefore, we take great care when choosing reviewers and take into account their expertise and reputation in the field as well as our own past experience with them.
Reviewers should treat the whole review process and any correspondence with them in this regards, either from the editor or from the publisher, strictly confidential, nor should they discuss the manuscript directly with someone not involved in the review process without the editor's prior consent.
We believe that anonymity of the reviewers is important for an objective review of a manuscript. Therefore, we do not disclose identities of the reviewers to the authors or to other reviewers of the manuscript, during or after the review process, unless a reviewer specifically wants us to do so.
Our aim is to complete the whole review process and publication of a manuscript as promptly as possible in order to keep timeliness of the published research. We therefore ask our reviewers to respond to the editor's initial contact with them as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours, and with their review report within 15 days unless otherwise agreed with the editor.
While writing your report please consider that the authors are most likely to have put enormous efforts in conducting research as well as in writing the manuscript. Therefore, aim your report to be critical but constructive and avoid using offensive and discouraging language. In most cases reviewer's a report is conveyed to the authors as such. However, in rare case if we feel that a reviewer has used unfair language or have revealed any confidential information, we may appropriately edit it. There is a standard form for writing your report. You may complete the standard form and send it to the editor by email. While making a judgment on a manuscript we ask you to consider the following points:
Reviewers are welcome to recommended acceptance or rejection of an article. However, the primary purpose of the review is to provide editors with the analytical argument to help them reach a decision. Therefore, if we have decided against a negative or positive recommendation of a reviewer, it does not imply in any way our lack of confidence in the reviewer's opinion or disregard for the reviewer's expertise. It is likely that the other reviewers may have expressed opposite views and, therefore, quite often we have to base our decisions on conflicting reports, one way or the other.
A timely return of the reviewers' recommendations is crucial to the publishing process. Late return of reviews is the main element that delays publication.
We hope that you will strive to bring to each review your considered expertise, to judge each paper with an open mind, and to find the right point between judging too permissively and too strictly.