ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
The reviewer makes an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted manuscript and determines its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. The reviewer must be impartial.
Expert evaluation is aimed at helping the author to improve the quality of the article, and the editor-in-chief – in making decisions about publication.
A reviewer who does not consider himself an expert in the subject of the article or knows that he will not be able to review the article in time should notify the editor-in-chief and refuse to review.
A reviewer cannot be a co-author of an article submitted for review. This also applies to the supervisors of degree seekers and/or employees of the department in which the author works.
Any manuscript received by the reviewer from the editorial board for review is a confidential document.
It is inadmissible to make personal remarks to the author in the review. The reviewer must express his opinion clearly and reasonably.
The reviewer must identify previously published works that are relevant to the peer-reviewed article and not cited by the author. Any statement in the review that some observations, conclusions or arguments from the peer-reviewed article have previously been found in the literature should be accompanied by an accurate reference to the source of the information.
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism or data falsification, he or she must contact the editorial board with a proposal for a collective review of the article.
The reviewer should provide an objective opinion on the sufficiency of citing existing literature on the subject.
The reviewer should not use the information and ideas from the article submitted to him for review for personal gain, adhering to the principle of confidentiality.
The reviewer should not consider the manuscript in the event of a conflict of interest due to competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any authors or organizations related to the article.