Reviewer Guideline

Reviewers play a central role in scholarly publishing. They help ensure the quality, integrity, and originality of the research published in the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback to authors.

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the reviewer(s) and author(s) identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This ensures that:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Peer review helps validate research, establish evaluation methods, and foster networking opportunities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review remains the most widely accepted method for research validation.

  1. Review Timeline

All submitted papers will undergo a double-blind peer review process, which typically takes 1 to 3 weeks from the date of submission. Authors are advised not to submit the same paper to multiple journals simultaneously and to wait for the review outcome before considering other submissions.

  1. Review Process Characteristics

Simultaneous Submissions: Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals will not be tolerated.

Scope Check: Manuscripts outside the journal’s scope will not be considered for review.

Expert Reviewers: Each manuscript will be reviewed by at least 3–4 experts recommended by the editorial board (1 from Azerbaijan, 2–3 from overseas).

Additional Reviews: Editors may request further reviews if necessary. Authors will be informed if additional review is required.

  • Publication Decisions: All decisions are made by the Editors-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ reports.
  • Notification: Authors of non-accepted papers will be promptly notified.
  • Confidentiality: All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
  • Plagiarism Check: All submissions are checked for plagiarism. Manuscripts found to be plagiarized during the initial review are immediately rejected.
  1. Plagiarism Policy

If a manuscript is found to be plagiarized after publication, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct a preliminary investigation, possibly with the assistance of a specially constituted committee. If plagiarism exceeds acceptable limits, the journal will contact the author’s Institute / College / University and Funding Agency, if any.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive and objective feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Complete reviews within the assigned timeline.
  1. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on:

  1. Originality and Scientific Value – Novelty and contribution to the field.
  2. Methodology – Appropriateness of research design and analysis.
  3. Structure and Organization – Clarity of sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion.
  4. Language and Style – Clarity, grammar, and readability.
  5. References and Literature – Relevance, recency, and completeness of citations.
  1. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers can recommend:

  • Accept: Ready for publication with minor or no revisions.
  • Accept with Revisions: Requires changes before acceptance.
  • Revise and Resubmit: Major revisions required; manuscript can be reconsidered.
  • Reject: Not suitable for publication.