Reviewer Guidelines
Scientific Advances Congress
Reviewer Guidelines
The peer-review role is one of the fundamental processes that safeguard the scientific quality and academic credibility of the congress. Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively and constructively, while adhering to confidentiality and ethical principles.
Aim & Scope
This guideline has been prepared to outline the fundamental principles to be followed during the peer-review process for papers submitted to the Scientific Developments Congress. The peer-review process aims to evaluate the papers' scientific contribution, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, clarity of findings, strength of discussion, and academic writing quality. The guideline covers the general framework regarding reviewer invitations, the evaluation process, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, suspected ethical violations, report writing, decision recommendations, and procedures conducted via the CMT system.
General Principles of Peer Process
The congress peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of scientific competence, impartiality, confidentiality, ethical responsibility, transparency, and consistency. The evaluation process focuses solely on the scientific content, methodological structure, originality, and alignment with the scope of the congress.
Reviewers must act independently of personal, institutional, academic, commercial, political, or ideological influences during the evaluation process. Reviewer reports should be prepared using clear, substantiated, academic, and constructive language that helps authors improve their work.
Evaluation via the CMT System
The peer review process is conducted via the CMT system. Reviewers view and evaluate the papers assigned to them through their CMT accounts and submit their reports via the system. Reviewers must fully complete the evaluation form provided in the CMT system and carefully fill out the sections for scoring, comments, and decision recommendations.
Manuscript files, author details, reviewer invitations, evaluation forms, decision recommendations, and editorial notifications within the CMT system are considered confidential. It is inappropriate for reviewers to submit their evaluations outside the system, share manuscript files with third parties, or communicate directly with authors.
Accepting or Declining a Reviewer Invitation
Reviewers should consider their areas of expertise, time availability, and potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review. A reviewer should accept the invitation only if they possess sufficient academic knowledge regarding the subject of the manuscript and the capacity to complete the review on time. The reviewer must decline the invitation if the subject matter falls outside their area of expertise, if they lack sufficient time for the review, or if a conflict of interest exists. When declining an invitation, the reviewer may suggest an alternative reviewer competent in the relevant field, if possible; however, the decision to appoint the suggested individual rests with the congress management and the scientific committee.
Principle of Expertise and Suitability
Reviewers should evaluate only those submissions that fall within their areas of expertise. The subject matter under review is expected to align with the reviewer's academic knowledge, research field, or professional experience. If a reviewer is able to evaluate only a specific section of a submission but cannot provide a comprehensive assessment of the entire work, they must state this limitation in their report or in the section designated for notes to the editor. Regarding aspects requiring specialized expertise—such as methodology, statistics, data analysis, social science terminology, management studies, ethical compliance, or domain-specific knowledge—reviewers must remain aware of the limits of their own competence and inform the editorial team when necessary.
Conflicvt of Interest Policy
Reviewers must immediately notify the congress editorial team if there is any conflict of interest that could affect the evaluation process. Conflicts of interest may include the following situations:
- Having a close academic, personal, or institutional relationship with the authors
- Recent joint publication, project, consultancy, or collaboration with the authors
- Direct or indirect academic, commercial, or personal benefit from the results of the study
- Previous direct contribution to the study, dataset, project, or research group
- There is rivalry, disagreement, or personal affinity that could affect an unbiased assessment.
In cases where there is a suspicion of conflict of interest, the referee should not make an evaluation and should wait for the decision of the editorial team.
Confidentiality and Blind Review Policy
Confidentiality is fundamental to the peer review process. Reviewers may not share the content, data, methods, findings, images, or results of the manuscripts they evaluate with third parties. Information obtained during the evaluation process cannot be used for personal academic work, course materials, projects, publications, presentations, or any other purpose. To preserve the integrity of the blind peer review process, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors or communicate directly with them. Reviewer reports must not contain statements, signatures, personal information, or file metadata that could reveal the reviewer's identity.
Core Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to fulfill the following responsibilities:
- Evaluating in accordance with scientific criteria and the scope of the congress
- Preparing the report using clear, substantiated, constructive, and academic language
- Refraining from using expressions that personally target authors or are disparaging or discriminatory
- Clearly identifying strengths and areas requiring improvement
- Explicitly stating any methodological, ethical, or bibliographic issues
- Presenting a recommendation regarding the decision that aligns with the reasoning provided in the report
- Completing the evaluation within the specified timeframe
- Adhering to principles of confidentiality and conflict of interest
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate submissions generally within the framework of the following criteria:
Alignment with Scope
Originality and Contribution
Methodological Competence
Clarity of Findings
Discussion and Conclusion
Ethical Compliance
Reviewers should also evaluate the title, abstract, keywords, references, language, and quality of academic writing.
Guidelines for Writing Reviewer Reports
The reviewer report must be clear, concrete, and substantiated, designed to help the authors improve the study. The report should not consist solely of general statements such as "suitable," "insufficient," or "needs improvement"; it must clearly specify which section requires improvement, the reason for it, and the nature of the required changes. Where possible, the reviewer report should follow this structure:
- A brief and objective summary of the study
- Strengths of the study
- Fundamental scientific or methodological issues
- Points requiring attention regarding ethics, data, references, or similarity
- Concrete suggestions for the authors to consider during revision
- A brief rationale supporting the recommendation
Reviewers must enter comments intended for the authors and confidential notes intended solely for the editor into the appropriate fields within the CMT system.
Decision Recommendations
Upon completing their evaluation, reviewers submit a decision recommendation via the CMT system. The final decision is made by the conference editorial team and the scientific committee. Decision recommendations generally fall into the following categories:
- Accept: The study is suitable for presentation/publication in its current form or with only minor formatting corrections.
- Minor Revision: The study is scientifically sound but requires limited corrections.
- Major Revision: The study requires significant scientific, methodological, or structural corrections.
- Reject: The study does not meet acceptable standards regarding scope, originality, methodology, ethical compliance, or scientific quality.
The decision recommendation must be consistent with the evaluation presented in the report.
Revision Evaluation
Papers requiring revision may be re-submitted to the original reviewers or to new reviewers, if deemed necessary. During the review of the revision, reviewers should assess the extent to which the authors have addressed the criticisms and suggestions raised in the previous report. Unless they identify a new and critical issue during the revision process, reviewers should refrain from introducing entirely new requests that were not mentioned in the initial evaluation. The review of the revision should determine whether the study has improved compared to its previous version, whether fundamental issues have been resolved, and whether it has attained sufficient scientific maturity for a final decision.
Reviewer Responsibility Regarding Suspected Ethical Violations
If reviewers encounter any situation during the evaluation process that raises suspicions of an ethical violation, they must report it to the editorial team via the CMT system. Situations that may give rise to suspicions of ethical violations include:
- Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
- Data fabrication or data falsification
- Absence of ethical approval information for a study requiring such approval
- Lack of informed consent information
- Content violating the privacy of participants or personal data
- Misleading authorship or doubts regarding author contributions
- Incorrect, incomplete, or misleading use of sources
- Failure to declare the use of artificial intelligence or unethical use thereof
Reviewers should not share suspicions of ethical violations directly with the authors; instead, they must convey such notifications to the editorial team.
Plagiarism and Similarity Assessment
Reviewers must be vigilant regarding text, data, methods, tables, figures, images, or ideas used without proper citation in the papers they evaluate. In cases of suspected similarity, reviewers should report the situation—along with their reasoning—to the editorial team rather than making a definitive judgment. The similarity rate alone is not the sole criterion for a final decision; the nature, source, and scope of the similarity, as well as whether it poses an ethical issue, are addressed within the scope of the editorial evaluation. It is inappropriate for reviewers to unnecessarily suggest their own sources or to steer authors toward citing the reviewer's own work.
Reviewer Responsibility Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence
Reviewers acknowledge that the papers they evaluate are confidential academic documents. Therefore, files such as manuscripts, abstracts, tables, data, or review materials should not be uploaded to third-party artificial intelligence tools that may pose confidentiality risks. AI-assisted tools may be used to a limited extent for tasks such as language correction or improving the formatting of the report text; however, the scientific responsibility for the review decision rests entirely with the reviewer. Reviewers must not use AI-generated assessments without verification and should not include scientifically unsubstantiated statements in their reports. The review report must reflect the reviewer's own academic assessment. AI tools cannot make decisions on behalf of the reviewer and cannot be designated as the reviewer.
Timely Evaluation and Time Management
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe specified in the CMT system. If a reviewer is unable to complete the evaluation within the allotted time, they must inform the editorial team as soon as possible. Since evaluations not completed on time can cause delays in the congress program, acceptance notifications, and the publication process, it is important for reviewers to pay attention to time management.
Editorial Process and Final Decision
Reviewers provide scientific opinions and decision recommendations; however, the final decision rests with the congress editorial team and the scientific committee. The editorial team may reach a final decision by collectively evaluating reviewer reports, decision recommendations, the scope of the congress, ethical compliance, program capacity, and scientific quality. In the event of conflicting opinions among reviewers, an additional reviewer's opinion may be sought, or a final decision may be made based on an editorial assessment. The editorial team reserves the right to edit or withhold from authors any reviewer comments that are inappropriate, personal, discriminatory, offensive, or lacking in scientific justification.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers and Certificate of Contribution
Upon completion of the evaluation process, the congress management may issue a certificate of appreciation or a certificate of contribution to reviewers who have participated in the review process. The issuance of such a certificate may be contingent upon the reviewer completing the evaluation task in a timely and thorough manner, in accordance with academic standards. Reviewer names may be published on the congress website or in the proceedings book—as part of the list of reviewers or the scientific committee—if deemed necessary and in compliance with confidentiality principles.
Contact
For inquiries regarding reviewer invitations, the CMT system, evaluation forms, conflicts of interest, suspected ethical violations, or technical issues, the official communication channels specified on the congress website should be used. Reviewers are advised to include the paper ID, paper title, and details of the invitation received via CMT in their correspondence whenever possible.
CMT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Why Choose Us
You Get Better Because We Are Better
Viverra felis placerat fringilla tempor consectetuer feugiat facilisis. In parturient egestas penatibus imperdiet.
Discount Up To 30% For First Installation
Facilisi scelerisque augue ac rhoncus odio efficitur nullam quisque magna praesent. Morbi torquent pulvinar cras malesuada erat purus etiam justo accumsan fusce.
+1 555-707-1234
Have Questions?
Our Featured Question Answer You Should Know
Nullam in venenatis urna, eu bibendum tortor. Phasellus at hendrerit ipsum, vitae placerat mauris. Nulla elit turpis, ullamcorper eleifend viverra blandit.