1. Introduction
USAR Publisher is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic publishing. These editorial guidelines ensure consistency, quality, and ethical integrity in all published research. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to adhere to these principles to maintain the credibility and impact of scholarly communication.
2. Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and quality of academic publishing. These guidelines provide a framework for reviewers to ensure an objective, thorough, and constructive review process.
2.1 Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
Evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, clarity, and significance to the field.
Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback.
Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism and data manipulation.
Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
2.2 Review Process
Reviewers should assess the manuscript within the allocated review period (typically 2-4 weeks).
Reviews should be structured, addressing strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement.
Reviewers should use objective and professional language.
If a reviewer cannot complete a review on time, they should inform the editorial office immediately.
2.3 Criteria for Evaluation
Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Originality & Significance – Does the manuscript contribute novel insights to the field?
Methodology – Are the research methods sound and appropriately applied?
Clarity & Structure – Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
References & Citations – Are relevant studies cited appropriately?
Ethical Considerations – Are there any concerns regarding research integrity or misconduct?
2.4 Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
Reviewers must keep manuscript details confidential and not share them with anyone.
Reviewers should not use unpublished data for personal or professional gain.
Any suspected ethical concerns should be reported to the editor immediately.
2.5 Recommendations
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers should provide a recommendation:
Accept as is – The manuscript meets all criteria for publication.
Minor Revisions Required – The manuscript requires minor modifications.
Major Revisions Required – The manuscript requires substantial improvements before reconsideration.
Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication standards.
2.6 Post-Review Responsibilities
If new ethical concerns arise after submitting a review, the reviewer should notify the editorial office immediately.
Reviewers should be available for follow-up discussions if needed by the editorial board.
3. Open Access and Licensing
USAR Publisher follows the CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial) license.
This allows for free and open access to research while restricting commercial use.
4. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Updates
Corrections: Minor errors that do not affect research findings may be corrected.
Retractions: Serious ethical violations, plagiarism, or errors that compromise research validity may lead to retraction.
Post-Publication Updates: Authors can request updates if new significant data emerges.
