Review Form

    Peer Review Standards Designed for scholarly journals, the guidelines follow internationally recognized academic peer review standards.

    Who can be a reviewer?

    A reviewer of a scientific paper may only be a person with a doctorate degreeю

    Ability to identify

    Reviewing in the journal is done in the form of open review.

    Peer-review process

    The reviewer should start the work process by reviewing the paper and attached files. Also, one should be familiar with the reviewer's instructions, ethics and standards.


    The reviewer must respect the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from using the information obtained in the course of the work either for their own interests or for the benefit of others or to discredit them. The reviewer should not involve other persons in the review process (including the researchers he supervises), unless he has the appropriate permission from the Editorial Board. And, the names of those who contributed to the review process should receive appropriate recognition for the service rendered.

    Bias and Competing Interests

    The reviewer must remain impartial regardless of national, religious, ethnic, gender or other views and commercial interests. If a reviewer discovers that he has a competing interest in a paper that might lead him to bias his evaluation, he should notify the Editorial Board and wait for a further recommendation. Before receiving the answer, he should refrain from familiarizing himself with the work and attached materials. Similarly, a reviewer should notify the Editorial Board if he/she finds that he/she does not have the necessary expertise to make a relevant evaluation of the paper, which may delay the review process.

    Violation of Ethical Norms

    If the reviewer notices any kind of inappropriate behavior on the part of the authors in relation to the research or publications, he should inform the Editorial Board about it.

    Preparation of the report

    Format. The reviewer should use the journal's guidelines for review writing and formatting in the process of writing the report. The reviewer should be objective and constructive in the review process, which means that the evaluation should help the authors to improve their work. Also, it is important that the reviewer be specific when making critical comments and provide relevant arguments to support the general statements he or she makes. This will help the editorial board to make a correct assessment of the work. Reviewers must be professional and refrain from negative or accusatory statements, personal comments, and unfounded accusations.

    Adequate feedback. The editorial board needs a fair, honest and unbiased assessment of the paper's strengths and weaknesses. The reviewer must ensure that the evaluations provided by him to the author and the editorial board are consistent with each other. Confidential evaluations sent to the Editorial Board must not contain defamation or baseless accusations. The mentioned component of the evaluation should be written with the view that the author of the paper will also see it. The primary purpose of peer review is to help authors improve their articles. Therefore, the reviewer should be constructive, honest and clear in his evaluations.

    Language and style. Making notes for improvement and correction of various details is important, however, if a scientific paper has too many linguistic errors and editorial errors, in this case reviewers should not spend effort on correcting it. If the paper is very poorly written, the reviewer should state his opinion in the evaluation form. It is the responsibility of the authors to proofread and compile the paper in accordance with high academic standards.

    The main goal of the reviewer is to evaluate the content of the paper and not to waste time on grammatical corrections.

    The reviewer should not use complex and unusual words while making the assessment. The review should be written in such a way that it can be understood by a wide audience.

    Proposal for conducting additional work. The reviewer's function is to evaluate the content quality of the paper. In the introduction, if the paper is not clearly stated and needs more analysis, the reviewer should make an appropriate comment about it. However, the reviewer should also keep in mind that they should not ask to expand the paper beyond the existing scope of the paper. It should be clearly defined what additional research is important in order to make the opinions raised in the paper more convincing and argumentative.

    Reviewers should refrain from solicitations that require authors to review their own or their colleagues' work in an article, thereby increasing the visibility of their activity.

    Such offers must be based on valid academic and technological reasons.

    Accountability. The reviewer must prepare the report independently. An exception exists only if the reviewer has received permission from the Editorial Board of the journal to use the help of another person in the preparation of the review.

    Last edition

    N1(531) - 2024