Ethical Standards for Peer Reviews

All submitted typescripts are considered privileged information and have to be treated as such. Reviewers (also those who declined a review invitation) and editors are instructed to treat submissions in strict confidence, and are expected to maintain confidentiality of a typescript’s contents, except for its author, editorial staff and the editor, unless with the consent of the Editor-in-Chief. They are forbidden to reveal the information to anyone and in any form.

Reviews should be made objectively, and feedback should be clearly formulated so that authors can use it to improve their texts. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers, to the best of their knowledge, should indicate published works that have not been cited by the authors.

The reviewer should notify the editors of any significant similarity of the typescript to any other text (published or unpublished) of which he has knowledge.

A reviewer who has a conflict of interest resulting from competition, cooperation or other relations or connections with any of the authors, organisations and institutions related to the typescript should immediately notify of the fact the Journal’s Editors.

Unpublished materials disclosed in the submission may not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the clear written consent of the authors.