Reviewer Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to BISTUA for publication undergo a double-blind peer review process. This ensures that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review. Carefully selected comments from reviewers like you are invaluable to the editors in making decisions about manuscript acceptance.

Reviewer Selection:

When selecting reviewers, we ensure they meet the following criteria:

  • Appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Adequate academic background, typically holding a Ph.D.
  • Experience in the specific subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

Reviewers who accept a manuscript review are responsible for:

  • Declaring any conflicts of interest before beginning the review.
  • Declining an invitation promptly if unavailable, and, if possible, recommending alternative reviewers.
  • Completing the review and submitting the report within the expected timeframe.
  • Evaluating the manuscript impartially and providing a detailed report with specific comments.
  • Reporting any suspected misconduct to the editors for further investigation.
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of assigned manuscripts.

To ensure an efficient and effective peer review process, and smooth editorial service, we appreciate reviewers taking a few minutes to read the following guidelines.

We strictly adhere to the criteria specified by COPE for ethical academic publication with maximum transparency. Therefore, we expect reviewers to follow ethical requirements. We recommend reviewers consult COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers when reviewing manuscripts submitted to BISTUA.

Timeliness of Response:

Timely communication between the journal and reviewers is crucial for consistent, fair, and prompt manuscript reviews. We expect reviewers to:

  • Accept or decline a review invitation promptly based on the title and abstract.
  • Return a review within the proposed deadline. If circumstances change and you cannot meet your original agreement or need an extension, notify the journal immediately.
  • Suggest relevant alternative reviewers if you are unable to review.

Conflicts of Interest:

Reviewers must provide impartial feedback. Before starting the review, reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may be personal, economic, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. If unsure whether a potential conflict might impair your review, notify the journal and seek advice.

Confidentiality:

Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process, and do not use or distribute any part of the manuscript until it is published. Reviewers should also be careful not to disclose their identity to the authors.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports and are not allowed to impersonate others during the review process. If you wish to invite others to participate in the peer review process, you must seek prior permission from the journal's editorial office. The names of individuals who contributed to the review should be included in the review report.

Suspected Ethical Violations:

Reviewers should report any suspicion of misconduct to the editorial office for further investigation. For example, if you notice significant similarities between the manuscript you are reviewing and a manuscript submitted to another journal simultaneously or a published manuscript. For any ethical concerns, contact the editorial office directly by email.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers:

To ensure a thorough and fair review of manuscripts, reviewers are required to complete an evaluation form covering the following essential aspects:

  • Authenticity and Originality: The results presented in the manuscript should be the original contribution of the authors, with no plagiarism or falsification. The presentation of new ideas, methods, or findings is valued.
  • Relevance and Impact: The content of the work should be interesting and relevant to the journal's audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
  • Scientific Rigor: The design and execution of the study should meet recognized technical standards. Conclusions should be supported by solid evidence, and the methodology should be transparent and reproducible.
  • Research Ethics: The study should be conducted ethically and respectfully, especially in research involving humans, animals, or other subjects.
  • Language Quality: The manuscript should be written clearly and precisely in English, free from spelling or grammatical errors, to ensure effective communication.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to enhance the quality and relevance of the manuscripts reviewed. Editors base their decisions on careful consideration of all reviewer comments, ensuring a fair and transparent editorial process.