Guidelines for Reviewers

All reviewers are expected to adhere to COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, providing accurate personal and professional information reflecting expertise and including verifiable, precise contact details. Reviewers should agree to review papers within their research interests, considering principles of confidentiality, professionalism, validity, objectivity, timeliness, and conflicts of interest. These ethical guidelines ensure integrity and quality in the peer review process.

Reviewers should agree to review manuscripts only when professional and scientific backgrounds in relevant research fields are reasonably confirmed through scientific works, research project participation, or similar qualifications. When requiring additional expert opinions on specific research questions, reviewers may contact Editors-in-Chief requesting additional scientist involvement while providing detailed information about the researcher's scientific qualifications. This ensures that reviews are conducted by appropriately qualified experts with relevant expertise.

Reviewers must be ready to provide scientifically grounded answers to authors disagreeing with recommendations and corrections, may request additional author information for quality reviews including interim calculations, statistical bases, or study provision clarifications in review comment sections, must be objective during review processes with well-argued comments and recommendations, and must respond to review invitations within specified timeframes while submitting reviews by agreed-upon deadlines. A professional and thorough review is conducted to maintain the quality and credibility of the peer review system.

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content, refraining from discussing reviewed manuscripts with anyone without prior editorial permission. They must also avoid copying, extending, or sharing manuscript information for any purpose, including personal research, and preserve the integrity of the review process through discretion and professionalism. Confidentiality extends beyond the review period and applies to all aspects of the manuscript and review process.

Reviewers should not violate COPE Ethical Guidelines, agree to review manuscripts without review submission intentions, review manuscripts closely related to their own research being prepared or submitted for publication, involve others in review processes without Editor-in-Chief approval, impersonate other persons during reviews, unreasonably delay or extend review processes without approval, request additional author information without valid reasons, make derogatory or unfair comments and accusations, or use artificial intelligence tools including LLM-based tools such as ChatGPT for review writing.

Before agreeing to review manuscripts, reviewers should ensure familiarity with ethical principles, read review forms sent with invitations, read abstracts, notify Editors immediately of conflicts of interest, inform Editors of deadline meeting concerns or extension requests, inform Editors when expertise areas do not cover entire studies, and recommend other reviewers with names, scientific competence areas, and contact information. Proper preparation ensures effective and appropriate review conduct.

Reviewers should provide detailed, constructive feedback clearly indicating manuscript advantages and disadvantages along with improvement suggestions, evaluate research methodology adequacy, issue relevance, and conclusion validity, check tables, figures, references, and additional materials thoroughly, contact editors for clarification on unclear issues, indicate study portions they cannot evaluate due to expertise limitations, and report suspected research dishonesty with clear misconduct details. High-quality reviews contribute significantly to manuscript improvement and publication excellence.

Following manuscript review, reviewers may be asked to evaluate revised versions. They should refrain from sharing reviews with third parties without the editor's and author's consent, maintain professional relationships with editorial teams, and contribute to the continuous improvement of peer review processes through feedback and suggestions. Ongoing engagement supports the evolution and enhancement of scholarly publishing practices.