Reviewing Standards

  • The journal adheres to a Double-Blind Peer Review system, where the identities of authors are completely concealed from reviewers to ensure the highest levels of objectivity and impartiality.
  • The reviewer is expected to strictly adhere to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and provide rigorous scientific criticism aimed at developing the article and enhancing its scientific value.
  • The journal's reviewers must assist the editors in making decisions regarding the publication of submitted articles, ensuring that their comments on each article they are invited to review are technical, professional, and objective.
  • Manuscripts and articles received for peer review are treated as "strictly confidential" documents; reviewers must maintain their confidentiality and are prohibited from using any information, data, or ideas contained within them for personal gain or sharing them before official publication.
  • Reviewers must immediately disclose and strive to avoid any potential conflict of interest (academic, financial, or personal); they may not review articles in which they find a conflict of interest with any authors, companies, or institutions, and must decline the review if any relationship exists that might affect the integrity of the editorial decision.
  • The reviewer bears an ethical responsibility to alert the editorial board when suspecting any form of misconduct, such as: data fabrication, plagiarism, or multiple publication of the same article.
  • The reviewer must ensure that the article does not violate any intellectual property rights or research ethics related to the human or social sample under study.
  • In appreciation of the fundamental role of reviewers in maintaining the journal's rigor, the journal is committed to granting a "Certified Review Certificate" for each completed article, with the names of distinguished reviewers included in the journal's annual Reviewers' Roll of Honor.
  • The journal works to link reviewers' efforts with global platforms for reviewer recognition (such as Web of Science Reviewer Recognition) to ensure their academic contributions are documented to support their scientific promotion files.