Peer Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the academic quality, integrity, and credibility of the International Scientific Conference ERAZ – Knowledge-Based Sustainable Development. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted abstracts and full papers within their area of expertise.

2. Eligibility and Acceptance of Review Assignments

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider the following:

• Whether the manuscript falls within their field of expertise

• Whether they are able to complete the review within the specified deadline

• Whether there is any conflict of interest that could affect impartial judgment

Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest (financial, institutional, personal, or academic) must decline the review assignment and inform the editors.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review materials are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts or review content with third parties

• Use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage

• Discuss the submission with anyone outside the editorial process

Confidentiality must be maintained before, during, and after the review process.

4. Review Process and Time Commitment

• Abstract reviews require a minimum of 20–30 minutes per submission.

• Full paper reviews require a minimum of 60 minutes, with additional time commonly needed for a thorough evaluation.

Reviews are completed exclusively through the ERAZ online review system, using structured assessment criteria and written comments.

5. Evaluation Focus

Peer review at ERAZ is focused on assessing the academic merit and contribution of the submission. Reviewers are asked to evaluate:

• Relevance to the conference themes,

• Originality and contribution to knowledge,

• Soundness of methodology and research design,

• Logical structure and clarity of argumentation,

• Clarity, coherence, and academic expression of the manuscript, including whether the argument is logically developed and understandable to an international scholarly audience,

• Adequacy and relevance of references.

Peer review is not intended to serve as language editing or proofreading; however, reviewers are expected to evaluate the clarity, coherence, and academic expression of the manuscript and to flag serious language or structural issues that affect scholarly communication.

6. Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, respectful, and constructive feedback, particularly when recommending rejection or major revision.

• Comments for authors should aim to improve the quality of the manuscript.

• Confidential comments for editors may be used to express concerns not suitable for authors.

Negative evaluations must be supported by clear reasoning and reference to the evaluation criteria.

7. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

Reviewers may use GenAI tools only as supportive instruments (e.g., for language assistance or summarization) and must not:

• Upload confidential manuscripts to public AI systems

• Rely on AI-generated assessments as a substitute for expert judgment

• Use GenAI tools to generate review decisions or recommendations

All evaluations remain the sole responsibility of the reviewer, in accordance with the ERAZ GenAI Policy.

8. Ethical Considerations and Misconduct

Reviewers should immediately notify the editors if they suspect:

• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism,

• Data fabrication or falsification,

• Ethical breaches or research misconduct.

All such reports are handled confidentially and investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Reviewers must avoid personal criticism and assess manuscripts solely on academic merit, without discrimination based on nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or ideological perspective.

9. Recommendation and Editorial Authority

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. Final publication decisions are made by the Conference Scientific Committee, particularly in cases of conflicting reviewer evaluations.

10. Acknowledgment of Responsibility

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers confirm their commitment to:

• Uphold academic integrity and confidentiality

• Provide fair, unbiased, and timely evaluations

• Support the advancement of high-quality scholarly research