The First Issue of ZeroBuild Journal will be Online on 01.01.2023
ZeroBuild Journal is online!
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor in chief who may not give approval without author consent.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.
The peer-review process has two important/possible outputs.
1. To explain the reasons for the REJECTION of the rejected articles in clear language in a way that will contribute to the authors.
2. To develop accepted articles in a way that will contribute more to the field/science/humanity.
In this context, the reviewers should fill out the form given below as many times as possible. None of the questions are mandatory. Mandatory parts of the form are; "Decision" and "Recommendations to the Authors". Reviewers are requested to read the form carefully. The reviewers are expected to clearly explain the questions to which they answered NO in the "Recommendations to the Authors" section as much as possible. The recommendations should be clear and in detail.
Reviewer Evaluation Form
This form is intended to make the review process easier for you, as well as to shorten and standardize it. You can organize your review according to this form. There are questions in the form that allow you to evaluate each section of the article separately. We advise you to respond to as many of these questions as possible. Please note that none of the questions are mandatory. You don't have to answer any questions you don't want to.
By pressing the "Yes" option, you can specify the subjects that you find sufficient. Otherwise please click “See Comments” button and in the “Notes to the Author(s)” section please contribute the paper as much as you can.
If you do not find the content of the paper worthy of publication, we request you reject it and adequately explain why it was rejected.
Review Questions include a sign for the paper types. If you review a Review Paper (RP), please answer the questions only that have (RP) at the end. If you review an Original Research Paper or a Short Communication paper, please evaluate all questions.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ümit ÜNVER
ZeroBuild Journal is online!
To submit an article to our journal, first read the information in the author's guide section. Use the sample article template for the article. If you have questions, you can contact us.