Reviewer Guideline

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

Dear Reviewer,

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.

Review Questions

  1. (Title) Is the Title relevant to the content? (RP)
  2. (Abstract) Is the purpose clearly stated in the Abstract? (RP)
  3. (Abstract) Are the result of the study and how they are achieved clearly given in the Abstract? Is the Abstract written as a short form of the paper?
  4. (Keywords) Are the keyword selections accurate? (RP)
  5. (Highlights) Do the Highlights include key bullet points from the paper's findings? (RP)
  6. (Introduction) Is the literature review sufficient for the intelligibility of the state of the existing science?
  7. (Introduction) Is the subject of investigation clearly described? (RP)
  8. (Introduction) Is the significance of the paper explained clearly? (RP)
  9. (Introduction) Is the gap in the field that the article fills explained? (RP)
  10. (Introduction) Is the innovative aspect of the paper mentioned? (RP)
  11. (Introduction) Are the features that distinguish this article from others explained? (RP)
  12. (Material and Method) Is the method section comply with the principle of repeatability?
  13. (Material and Method) Does a valid and reliable method used in the study?
  14. (Material and Method) Are the variables properly identified and measured?
  15. (Material and Method) Does the Material and Method section clearly explain how all the findings given in the Results section are achieved?
  16. (Results and Discussion) Are the results presented appropriately? (RP)
  17. (Results and Discussion) Are tables and figures legible and understandable? (RP)
  18. (Results and Discussion) Are the units suitable? (RP)
  19. (Results and Discussion) Are the findings presented non-repetitive? (RP)
  20. (Results and Discussion) Are the findings sufficiently discussed from multiple sides? (RP)
  21. (Results and Discussion) Do you think meaningful results have been achieved? (RP)
  22. (Results and Discussion) Are the results validated?
  23. (Conclusion) Do the Conclusions answer the aims?
  24. (Conclusion) Are the conclusions produced from the findings of this paper? (RP)
  25. (Conclusion) Are numerical findings (net results) given in this section?
  26. (Overall) Does this paper fit the "Aims and Scopes" of ZBJ? (RP)
  27. (Overall) Does the study design appropriate to answer the aim? (RP)
  28. (Overall) Is the subject of the article original? Does it contribute to the field? (RP)
  29. (Overall) Is the article consistent within itself? (RP)
  30. (Overall) Is the language of the article simple and understandable enough? the paper free of typographical and grammatical errors, and doubtful/controversial arguments? (RP)