Peer Review Process

Reviewers are required to comply with and promote integrity in research and its publication in accordance with the ethical principles of COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) publication.
By submitting articles for publication in the scientific journal JETC the authors agree to have their articles reviewed.
Articles are given an editorial code which makes it possible to identify them during the subsequent stages of the publishing process.
Submitted articles are evaluated formally by the Editorial Office, then sent to two independent reviewers who are specialists in the scientific field of the article.
The article is sent to a reviewer from a different organization than the one in which the author works.
In order to avoid unconscious bias, the articles are reviewed anonymously in the process of double-blind review - the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, and the reviewer does not know the identity of the author.
Authors are informed about the results of the double-blind reviews.
The list of reviewers is published at the end of each year on the website of the journal JETC journal and in the last issue of a given year.
In order to publish a submitted article, two positive reviews are required.
Before accepting or rejecting a review request, a potential reviewer should consider the following issues:
Does the article correspond to the scientific field and scientific interests of the reviewer? The editors kindly ask the reviewers to accept the best quality research papers.
Is there a conflict of interest? If so, please notify the Editorial Office immediately.
Is a reviewer able to perform a review on a specific date?

In order to ensure the shortest possible time needed to inform the author of the article about the results of the review, please send us the information about whether the invitation to review was accepted or rejected as soon as possible.

Rights and obligations of reviewers:
The evaluation of the article by reviewers is not affected by conflicts of interest related to competition, cooperation with other authors or institutions or companies of the author of the publication.
Reviewers of articles are obliged to promptly evaluate the materials received (up to 14 days); if they know that this is not possible, they should inform the Editorial Board about it.
Reviewers shall assess the article only on its merits, justifying its arguments and being fully objective.
Reviewers should identify relevant publications that the author has not quoted in the article. Any advice or recommendation that has been identified in the review or guiding a comment should be followed by the author.
In order to prevent plagiarism, reviewers are required to inform the Editorial Board immediately of any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript and other published known works, giving as much detail as possible. For more information, please visit the COPE website.
According to COPE guidelines, reviewers must treat any manuscript they wish to review as confidential.
A review is confidential, so it is not allowed to share it or the information contained therein without the consent of the Editor and the authors. This applies both to the publication process and afterwards.
Unpublished materials may not be treated as a review of own research, nor may they be used by a reviewer in any way without the express consent of their author.
Reviewers shall pay particular attention to the following criteria, such as:
compatibility of the title of the article with its content,
compliance of the article with the issues of the journal,
the usefulness of the research undertaken for science,
timeliness and originality of the issues raised,
the substantive value of the text,
the quality of the research,
meeting editorial requirements,
the nature of the article (scientific, communication, report, review, etc.),
the structure of the content,
language and terminology,
comprehensibility and legibility of diagrams, tables and drawings,
timeliness and proper selection of bibliographies/references.
The reviewer’s recommendation may adopt one of the conclusions:
the article without comments; may be published in its entirety,
the article requires minor changes and may be published afterwards,
the article requires significant corrections and should be reviewed before publication,
the article is not suitable for publication.