Reviewers Guidelines

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review plays a crucial role in assisting editors in making informed editorial decisions. Additionally, through constructive communication with authors, peer review contributes to enhancing the quality of submitted manuscripts. As a fundamental aspect of scholarly communication, peer review is central to the scientific process. Cigarskruie journal aligns with the widely held perspective that all scholars who seek to contribute to academic publications have a responsibility to participate equitably in the peer review process.

Promptness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate the research presented in a manuscript or anticipate an inability to complete a timely review should promptly inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be regarded as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, or discuss the contents of a manuscript with others unless explicitly authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted with impartiality and objectivity. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, and reviewers should provide constructive feedback supported by well-reasoned arguments and relevant evidence.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers are responsible for identifying relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by an appropriate citation. Additionally, reviewers should notify the editor of any significant similarities or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published works known to them.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials presented in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author. Any privileged information or ideas acquired through the peer review process must remain confidential and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers must refrain from evaluating manuscripts in cases where conflicts of interest arise due to competitive, collaborative, or other affiliations with the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript.