Reviewer Guideline

The peer-review process is an indispensable component of scientific progress. Evaluations conducted by independent scholars serve as advisory input to the Editorial Board of the Acta Scientiae et Intellectus (ASI) regarding the publication of high-quality manuscripts. All submissions are subject to a fully confidential review process.

Reviewers of manuscripts submitted to ASI are meticulously selected from the academic community with due consideration of their expertise. Reviewer identities remain anonymous and are known only to the editors, who are also bound by confidentiality. Manuscripts are evaluated impartially, regardless of the author’s race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, political orientation, age, or reputation.

The reviewers evaluating submissions for ASI are selected from experts in the relevant fields. Their selection is based on their objectivity and scientific expertise. All reviewers are informed about the expectations of ASI. Each reviewer is asked to complete a review form and, if necessary, prepare an additional report. Individuals who have conflicting interests regarding the subject of a manuscript (e.g., those who have collaborated with or contributed to the work of one of the authors, or are unable to offer an objective opinion) are not permitted to review the manuscript. This also includes individuals employed by the institution where the work was conducted or its competitor, or those with specific political or ideological biases. Such individuals must inform the editorial board of any potential conflicts of interest before the manuscript is assigned for review.

Reviewers are expected to provide evaluations that are professional, honest, respectful, timely, and constructive.

The key components required for a high-quality review are as follows:

  • Reviewers should identify and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the study design and methodology.
  • Reviewers should assess the author’s handling of data (considering limitations where applicable) in a fair and constructive manner.
  • Reviewers should determine the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, regardless of its structure, methodology, results, or content.
  • Reviewers should indicate whether the study raises ethical concerns or falls short of scientific standards.
  • Reviewers should offer constructive advice to authors on how the manuscript can be improved. Criticism should be delivered professionally.
  • The review should provide the editor with a sound basis for deciding whether the manuscript should be accepted (and/or revised).
  • Reviewers are expected to identify uncited works and recommend appropriate citations, particularly if content overlaps with existing publications.
  • Reviewers should report any significant similarities between the manuscript under review and other published or submitted manuscripts.
  • Reviewers must not contact the author directly. In many cases, two experts will be consulted; however, their opinions may differ from the final decision made by the editor. Even partial feedback from a reviewer can lead to misunderstandings about the review process.
  • Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations within 7 calendar days. If no response is provided within this period, the reviewer will be considered to have declined, and a new reviewer will be assigned. Reviewers who accept the invitation are expected to submit their evaluations within 15 calendar days from the date of acceptance. Reviewers who cannot complete the evaluation within this time may request a 7-day extension. If no extension is requested, a new reviewer will be assigned.

Confidentiality

  • All information and ideas obtained during the review process must be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. The manuscript is considered privileged information and must remain strictly confidential.
  • Reviewers may not download or copy the manuscript. Additionally, unless written permission is granted by the editor, reviewers may not share the manuscript with colleagues.
  • Reviewers and editors may not, without the express permission of the authors, use any data, interpretations, or content (unless directly relevant to the review) for personal or professional gain, or write commentaries or reviews prior to publication.
  • Reviewers must notify the editorial board if they detect a potential conflict of interest.
  • Reviewers who are unable to complete the review or can only do so with delay must inform ASI.
  • Reviewers must assess the quality of the manuscript with an objective perspective, provide clear, unbiased, and constructive feedback, and avoid personal criticism of the authors.
  • Comments made by reviewers may be shared with authors. Therefore, reviewers must clearly state and support their opinions so that authors can understand the reasoning behind the feedback.
  • If reviewers suspect any violation or misconduct, they are encouraged to notify the editor and must not discuss the matter with anyone else unless authorized by ASI.

Steps for Reviewers to Follow When Assessing a Manuscript Submitted via the System:

  • Log in at www.actaint.com with your username and password.
  • From the Reviewer Panel, click on the “Task Queue” tab to access the manuscript assigned to you.
  • Click “View” on the right side of the relevant manuscript to access the manuscript details.
  • Accept the review invitation.
  • Download the assigned manuscript file by clicking “Review Files.”
  • Save your review comments directly in the document. To do this, open the Word document, click on the “Review” tab, and enable “Track Changes.” Use “New Comment” or right-click on the selected text to add comments as needed.
  • After completing the review, rename the file as “Reviewer Report.” Then delete the author’s personal information from the file. This is important to maintain reviewer anonymity. To do so:
    • Go to File → Info → Check for Issues → Inspect Document → Remove All (Document Properties and Personal Info)
    • Alternatively: Tools → Protect Document → Privacy → Remove Personal Information from This File
  • In the manuscript panel, click the “Review” tab and complete the “Manuscript Evaluation Form” found at the bottom of the page. Click “Submit Review” to finalize the process.

At the end of the form, you must select one of the following options under the “Recommendation” section:

  • Suitable for Publication
  • Publishable After Revisions
  • Requires Revisions and Re-review
  • Prefer Not to Publish
  • Reject
  • Forward to Another Reviewer

If you select “Requires Revisions and Re-review”, you will be reassigned the manuscript in the next review phase. In that case, you will be expected to repeat the same steps described above (re-accept the invitation, re-review the revised manuscript, and follow the process again).

Selecting “Suitable for Publication” indicates that no revisions are recommended and the manuscript is ready for publication in its current form.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to our journal.