Responsibilities of reviewers
PARTICIPATION IN MAKING EDITORIAL DECISIONS
Reviewing procedure supports the editors in making editorial decisions and alsocan help the authors to improve the submitted manuscript.
PROMPTNESS OF REVIEWING
If the reviewer selected by the editor does not have sufficient qualifications for reviewing the manuscript or realizes that he/she does not have the opportunity to produce a review within the time limits specified by the editorial board, he/she must immediately notify the editorial office and withdraw from further review process.
Any material received for review must be treated as a confidential document. The submitted materials must not be shown to or discussed with other people without prior consent of the editorial board.
STANDARDS OF OBJECTIVITY
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewer’s opinionshould be expressed clearly, with supporting points.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES
Reviewers should identifythe cases when relevant published works were not citedin the manuscript or were not indicated in the reference list. In addition, the reviewermonitors if all the statements,conclusions and ideas that were borrowed from other papers are accompanied by correspondingsource reference. If the reviewer noticesany substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other known published paper, he/she is obliged to inform the editorial board about this fact.
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Undisclosable information and ideas that the reviewer receives during the review of the manuscript are considered confidential, and therefore cannot be used by the reviewer for personal purposes. The reviewer has no right to review the manuscripts in respect of which he/she has a conflict of interests due to competitive, collegial or any other connections with the authors of the manuscript, as well as companies or institutions related to the manuscript.