For reviewers
Reviewing
All research articles and most other types of articles accepted by the journal undergo a review process, which, as a rule, includes independent evaluation by at least two expert reviewers.
Reviewing Policy
All submitted manuscripts are initially checked for completeness before they are sent to an editor to determine whether they meet the criteria for review. In making a final decision on a manuscript, the editor will take into account the reviewers’ reports, but will not be bound by the opinions and/or recommendations contained in those reports. A concern raised by either a single reviewer or the editor alone may lead to rejection of the manuscript. The reviewers’ reports and the editorial decision on the manuscript may be shared with the authors.
Selection of Reviewers
The selection of reviewers is a key element of the publication process. Various factors are used to determine a reviewer’s suitability, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflicts of interest, and past performance. Desirable qualities of reviewers include promptness, thoroughness, sound reasoning, and collegiality. In extremely rare cases when it is impossible to obtain two independent reviewers, the editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision based on only one report.
Authors should avoid suggesting recent co-authors or colleagues working at the same institution, and should provide the institutional email address of any proposed reviewer, as well as their ORCID or Scopus ID.
Reviewing Models
Blind review: Journals usually use blind review. Authors identify themselves to the reviewers, but reviewers do not identify themselves to the authors. Double-blind review is a process in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. All reviews are conducted via Research Square and are double-blind. The prepublication history of the article is not available online. Falsification or provision of false or misleading information to a reviewer or to Research Square during the review process (for example, using another person’s identity or creating fake reviewers) will result in rejection of your manuscript and further investigation in accordance with the journal’s misconduct policy.
Guidelines for Reviewers
The primary purpose of the review process is to provide the editor with sufficient information to make a fair, evidence-based decision in line with the journal’s editorial standards. Reviewers’ reports should also help authors revise their manuscripts to make them suitable for publication.
AI Using Ethics
Reviewers are crucial to the integrity of scholarly publishing. Their expert assessments and recommendations guide editorial decisions and help ensure that published research meets high standards of validity, rigor, and reliability. Reviewers are responsible for the accuracy and perspective expressed in their reports, and the review process is based on mutual trust between authors, reviewers, and editors. Although generative artificial intelligence tools are rapidly evolving, they currently have significant limitations: they may lack up-to-date knowledge and may generate nonsensical, biased, or false information. In addition, manuscripts may contain confidential or proprietary information that should not be disclosed outside the review process. If any aspect of the assessment of a manuscript’s claims is supported in any way by an AI tool, reviewers are expected to clearly disclose this use in their review report.