Editorial decisions
The reviewers support the Editor-in-Chief in taking editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving his/her work.
Feedback
Any reviewer who is not able to examine the manuscript due to the lack of expertise or time should inform the editors as fast as possible so they can appoint new reviewers.
Confidentiality
All reviewed manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be showed to or discussed with persons other than the editors.
Objectivity standards
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is deemed inappropriate. The reviewer should clearly express his/her views supporting them with appropriate arguments.
Anonymity
All reviews are anonymous and the Editorial Board does not make authors’ personal data available to reviewers.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
The reviewer must not use in his/her research any crucial information or ideas coming from an unpublished manuscript without an express written consent of its author. In case of the conflict of interest related to the relationship with the author, company or institution connected to the manuscript the reviewer should decline the invitation to review the given manuscript.
Confirmation of sources
The reviewer should point out important published research that has not been referred to by the author of the manuscript. Any claim that is an observation, source or argument that has been previously discussed should be supported by an appropriate reference. The reviewer should also inform the editors of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other paper (published or unpublished) if he/she notices it.
