For Reviewers

The peer-review process is an indispensable component of scientific advancement, and evaluations conducted by independent scientists provide advisory recommendations to the Editorial Board of Acta Scientiae et Intellectus (ASI) for the publication of its best articles. Articles are subjected to a completely confidential evaluation process.

The reviewers who evaluate the articles submitted to ASI are carefully selected from the academic community with attention to their fields of expertise. The identities of the reviewers are kept confidential and are known only to the editors who also need to maintain confidentiality. Applications for publication are evaluated impartially without regard to the author's race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political orientation, age, or reputation.

The pool of reviewers who assess ASI's work is selected from among experts in the topics covered by the articles. They are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All reviewers are informed by ASI about what is expected of them. They are asked to fill in an evaluation form and prepare a separate report if necessary. Persons who have a difference of opinion about the subject matter of an article (e.g., those who have collaborated with or contributed to one of the authors or who cannot offer an objective view of the work, those who are employees of an institution under review, competitors of that institution, or those with particular political or ideological views) are not eligible to review the article. These individuals should contact the editorial board before the manuscript is sent to the reviewers to indicate any potential differences of opinion or conflicts of interest.

The peer reviews are expected to be professional, honest, tactful, timely, and constructive.

The essential elements required for a high-quality evaluation are:

Reviewers should identify and provide comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the study's organization and methodology. Reviewers should accurately and constructively criticize the author's data processing skills (considering that the data may be limited). Reviewers should identify the weak and strong points of the study as a written communication tool, regardless of its organization, methodology, results, and processing. Reviewers should express their thoughts on whether the study raises ethical concerns or has low scientific standards. Reviewers should provide useful advice to authors to improve the study. Reviewers' criticisms should be constructive and professional towards the author. The evaluation should provide the editor with an accurate perspective and content on whether to accept the study (and/or to review it again). Reviewers are expected to identify any unquoted works and use quotations to report which elements of the study have been previously reported elsewhere, whether in another journal or submitted to ASI. Reviewers are expected not to contact authors directly. In many cases, the views of two experts will be sought, but their views may not be the same as the editor's final decision on the article in question. Receiving partial advice from a reviewer can give authors incorrect impressions of the evaluation process. Invited reviewers for article evaluation are expected to communicate their acceptance or rejection decision within 7 (seven) calendar days. Reviewers who do not submit a decision by the deadline are considered to have rejected the review and the field editor will appoint a new reviewer. Reviewers who accept the evaluation are expected to submit their opinions within 15 (fifteen) calendar days from the date of acceptance. If the reviewer is unable to complete the evaluation process within this period, an additional 7 (seven) days may be requested. If the reviewer does not request additional time, a new reviewer will be appointed.


During the evaluation process, the information and ideas obtained as a referee are kept confidential and cannot be used in any way to gain an advantage. As the application is a privileged communication, it is completely kept confidential.

Referees cannot receive or copy the application. Additionally, those involved in the evaluation cannot share the work with their colleagues without the written permission of the editor.

Referees and editors cannot benefit from the data, interpretations, or subjects of the work (unless directly related to the evaluation) either professionally or personally without the authors' explicit permission or write any editing or commentary on the work.

When there is any difference of opinion/conflict of interest, referees should report this to the editorial board.

If referees are unable to review any work or can only do so with a slight delay, they should inform ASI.

Referees should evaluate the quality of the work objectively, provide constructive feedback in a clear, impartial, and constructive manner, and avoid personal criticisms of the authors.

There is no objection for the authors to be aware of the comments made by referees. Therefore, the opinions of referees should be clearly stated and supported so that authors can understand the principles of the comments and evaluations.

If referees suspect any violations, they can easily report it to the editor and should not share the matter with others unless they have received information from ASI that they can do so.

Our referees should follow the steps below to evaluate an article submitted through the system:

Log in to the panel using your username and password.

Click on the "Job Queue" tab in the referee panel to access the assigned article.

Click on the "View" button located on the right side of the relevant article to access the article information.

Accept the invitation to referee the article

Download the article file that has been assigned to you by clicking on the "Evaluate Files" button.

Save your evaluation notes on the article. To do this, click on the "Review" tab in the Word document and activate the "Track Changes" button. You can also add comments using the "New Comment" button or by right-clicking on the relevant text.

After completing your evaluation, change the file name to "Referee Report". Then, delete the author information from the file. This step is important to prevent the author from accessing the referee information ("File-Info-Inspect Document-Check for Issues-Inspect Document Properties and Personal Information-Remove All").

Fill out the "Article Evaluation Form" located at the bottom of the page by clicking on the "Evaluation" tab in the article panel. Click the "Submit Evaluation" button to complete the process.

At the end of the form, you are required to select one of the options under the heading "Recommendation", which includes "Suitable for Publication", "Can be Published After Corrections are Made", "Needs to be Reviewed After Corrections are Made", "Not Suitable for Publication", "Cannot be Published", and "Send to Another Reviewer". If you choose the option "Needs to be Reviewed After Corrections are Made", you will be assigned as a reviewer again in the next process, and the process explained above will be repeated in the same way (In this case, you need to accept the invitation again, review the text and repeat the above procedures). The option "Suitable for Publication" means that no correction is recommended to the author and the text can be published as it is.

Thank you for your contribution to ASI journal.