Reviewer Guideline

Peer Review Process

ZeroBuild Journal applies a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

All submitted manuscripts first undergo an initial editorial screening for relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, basic scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, and submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected before external review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected according to their expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, manuscripts may be accepted, rejected, or returned for minor or major revision. Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments and revise their manuscripts accordingly.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, reviewer reports, ethical requirements, and the journal’s editorial standards.

 

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.

 

Promptness

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.

 

Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be disclosed to or discussed with any third party unless explicitly authorized by the Editor-in-Chief and permitted under the journal’s confidentiality requirements.

 

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, reviewers are encouraged to answer as many of the questions in the evaluation form below as possible. The individual review questions are not mandatory; however, the “Decision” and “Recommendations to the Authors” sections must be completed. Reviewers are requested to read the form carefully. Reviewers are encouraged to clearly explain any negative assessments in the “Recommendations to the Authors” section and to provide specific, constructive comments whenever possible. The recommendations should be clear and detailed.

 

                                                                       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. The individual review questions are optional; however, the “Decision” and “Recommendations to the Authors” sections must be completed.

By pressing the "Yes" option, you can specify the subjects that you find sufficient. Otherwise, please select “See Comments” and provide specific and constructive feedback in the “Notes to the Author(s)” section.

If you do not find the content of the paper worthy of publication, we ask you to recommend rejection and clearly explain the reasons for your recommendation.

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) Does the Methods section provide sufficient information to ensure reproducibility?
  13. (Material and Method) Does the study use valid and reliable methods?
  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 Scope" of ZBJ? (RP)
  27. (Overall) Is the study design appropriate for addressing the aims of the study? (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 manuscript clear and understandable, and is the manuscript reasonably free from typographical and grammatical errors and unsupported or ambiguous statements? (RP)