{"id":543,"date":"2026-10-05T14:14:29","date_gmt":"2026-10-05T14:14:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kongre.consulix.net\/?page_id=543"},"modified":"2026-10-08T17:25:41","modified_gmt":"2026-10-08T17:25:41","slug":"peer-review-guidelines","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/saccongress.com\/en\/peer-review-guidelines\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewer Guidelines"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reviewer Guidelines<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Scientific Advances Congress<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Reviewer Guidelines<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Aim & Scope<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

General Principles of Peer Process<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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.<\/p>

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.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Evaluation via the CMT System<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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.<\/p>

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.<\/p><\/section><\/section>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Accepting or Declining a Reviewer Invitation<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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 \u200b\u200bexpertise, 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.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Principle of Expertise and Suitability<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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\u2014such as methodology, statistics, data analysis, social science terminology, management studies, ethical compliance, or domain-specific knowledge\u2014reviewers must remain aware of the limits of their own competence and inform the editorial team when necessary.<\/p><\/section>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Conflicvt of Interest Policy<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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:<\/p>