Reviewer's Guidelines

This document has been meticulously compiled to meet the specific needs of the Tereni /Terrains/ and is based on the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the recommendations of the Council of Scientific Editors and ALLEA (All European Academies). The aim is to ensure the integrity, transparency and accountability of scientific publishing. These guidelines address areas of risk such as authorship, data sharing, conflicts of interest and dealing with wrongdoing, and cover the entire publication lifecycle.

The editorial board plays a central role in the publication process and recognizes the ethical responsibilities of all those involved in the process. Consequently, the Editorial Board is committed to promoting these guidelines among all those involved in the creation and publication of scholarly work in Tereni.

Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a key role in the publication process. Their assessments and feedback directly contribute to the quality, credibility and integrity of published research. As impartial experts, reviewers assess the scientific value, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts and provide constructive criticism to help authors improve their work. Given their important role in the review process, reviewers should adhere to high ethical standards, maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, and make fair, unbiased, and timely evaluations. By accepting a manuscript for peer review, they agree to the journal's terms and publication policy, and when they fill out the peer review form (линк), they explicitly declare their compliance.

It is the primary responsibility of reviewers to maintain confidentiality in the review process. They may not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript sent to them for review or its contents (including research data, proposed hypotheses, and reported results) with anyone outside the review process without the express permission of the editor. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review the manuscript but have already become familiar with its contents. In order to ensure the anonymity on which the double-blind review system is based, they should avoid making comments that might inadvertently reveal their identity or refer to unpublished work. Ensuring confidentiality and anonymity is essential to preserve the integrity of the review process, and to ensure that feedback is based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript.

Reviewers should provide clear, detailed, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts. Their work should be based on objective analysis focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the research, without personal bias or unfounded criticism. The ideal goal of peer review is to improve the quality of the manuscript, and reviewers play a critical role in guiding authors toward that goal.

Meeting the deadlines is another important aspect of the reviewer's responsibility. Publication of a manuscript is dependent on peer review, and any delay can prevent the dissemination of important research. Reviewers should only accept manuscripts for review if they are able to complete the task of reviewing them within the specified time limit. If unforeseen circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief or Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible so that an appropriate decision can be made without significant delay.

Reviewers play a critical role in identifying potential ethical issues in a manuscript. They must be vigilant in detecting signs of plagiarism, fabrication of data, and falsification of data. If plagiarism is suspected, reviewers should notify the appropriate editor, providing specific examples of duplicate text and references to the original source. For data manipulation issues, reviewers should indicate this in their review so that the author can provide the necessary data. The reviewer may suggest that the editor seek independent expert opinion.

Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased evaluation of the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may be real or perceived. Even in the case of perceived conflicts of interest, such as personal relationships with authors, financial interests related to the research topic, or academic and professional competition, the reviewer should inform the Editor-in-Chief or Editor/Co-Editor-in-Chief, who, after discussion with the Editorial Board, will decide whether the reviewer may continue to review or must be replaced. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is essential to ensure the integrity of the peer review process.

Reviewers are expected to conduct themselves professionally throughout the review process. This includes treating authors with respect and providing feedback in a constructive manner, without derogatory or disparaging comments. The tone of the review should be neutral and focused on improving the manuscript rather than criticizing the authors personally. Even if the manuscript is flawed or requires substantial revision, reviewers should strive to make suggestions that will help authors improve the quality of their work. If they feel that the manuscript cannot be published, this should be respectfully noted in the review. If a reviewer refuses to abide by the Journal ethics, the editor reserves the right to decline the review and seek another reviewer.

In addition to providing fair and unbiased evaluations, reviewers must respect the intellectual property rights of the authors. They may not use ideas, data, or methods presented in the manuscript for their own research purposes before the manuscript is published. This would be a serious breach of ethical standards and would undermine the credibility of the peer review process.

Reviewers' recommendations are an important part of the editorial decision-making process. Reviewers suggest that a manuscript be accepted, revised, or rejected based on their assessment of the quality and significance of the work. The final decision rests with the editor, who considers the reviewer's comments and decides on next steps. Reviewers should provide a clear rationale for their recommendations, outlining the reasons for suggesting major revisions or rejection.

Adherence to these guidelines ensures that all participants in the scientific publishing process adhere to the highest standards of ethics and integrity. By embracing transparency, managing conflicts of interest and encouraging open dialogue, the academic community can ensure the value of research and enjoy the public trust. Effective management of ethical issues, coupled with a commitment to rigorous standards, is essential to the advancement of knowledge and contributes to the integrity of scientific work.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROCEDURES

The reviewer receives an email invitation from the editor responsible for the particular issue. The invitation contains information about the issue and the text proposed for review. Upon receipt of the invitation, the reviewer should respond within one week whether he/she accepts the text for review. If he accepts, he is sent a review form (link) and an anonymized text (with title but no author) and has one month to complete the review. After carefully reviewing the text, the reviewer decides whether to just fill in the review form or to also make suggestions and comments in the manuscript itself with notes and/or via the Track Changes function, after making sure that it is used anonymously (relevant instructions are available in the review form - link). Recommendations and comments to the author and the Editorial Board should be objective, unbiased, and clear, and should be consistent with the journal's scientific ethics and publication policy, as well as the aims, scope, and quality standards of Tereni. 

In the event that the invited reviewer is aware that he/she is unable to complete the review within the specified time limit or is suspicious of possible conflicts of interest, he/she is obliged to inform the Editor-in-Chief within one week of receipt of the invitation so that the Editor-in-Chief may consider, in the light of the complex of circumstances involved in preparing the issue for publication, whether to seek another reviewer.

In the event that, after accepting the text for review, unforeseen circumstances arise in the course of working on the review, leading to an inability to complete it on time or clarifying in some way a conflict of interest situation, or other factors casting doubt on the ability to complete the review and/or its objectivity and/or anonymity, the reviewer is obliged to inform the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible so that the Editor-in-Chief can decide, according to the complex of circumstances involved in preparing the issue for publication, whether to seek another reviewer, to extend the deadline or to discuss the case with the Editorial Board.

In the event that a reviewer fails to comply with deadlines or procedures, or violates the journal's publication policy in any way, any member of the editorial board may call a meeting to discuss the case, so that a decision can be made as to whether the reviewer should be replaced by another reviewer or continue his work as a reviewer.