Ethical principles of peer review

Advances in Nuclear Science and Applications adheres to a Double-Blind Peer Review process for all submitted manuscripts. This model ensures impartiality, transparency, and fairness in the review process by protecting the identities of both the authors and the reviewers throughout the evaluation.

How Double-Blind Peer Review Works:

1. Anonymity: Both the authors and the reviewers are unaware of each other's identities. Authors do not know who is reviewing their work, and reviewers do not know who the authors are.

2. Impartial Evaluation: The double-blind system helps prevent any potential bias related to the authors' reputation, affiliations, or other personal factors. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript solely on its scientific quality, relevance, and contribution to the field.

3. Confidentiality: The peer review process is confidential. Reviewers are expected to treat the manuscript as a privileged document and must not disclose any details of the manuscript or its review to others.

4. Fair and Rigorous Review: The double-blind approach ensures that all submitted manuscripts are reviewed solely based on their academic merit, supporting the journal’s commitment to high standards of publication ethics and quality.

Journal Commitment:

The editorial board of Advances in Nuclear Science and Applications is fully committed to maintaining a Double-Blind Peer Review process for all manuscripts, providing an unbiased, transparent, and robust platform for scholarly research. This process ensures that authors receive constructive and fair feedback while maintaining the integrity of the scientific publishing process.

Advances in Nuclear Science and Applications is committed to following the peer review principles set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) The journal ensures that all manuscripts undergo a fair, transparent, and unbiased review process. We adhere to COPE’s guidelines to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct in the review process, promoting academic integrity and ensuring that authors, reviewers, and editors act with professionalism and transparency.

1. Confidentiality

Reviewers are required to treat the manuscript and any associated materials as confidential documents. They must not share, discuss, or use the manuscript’s content for personal gain or any other purposes outside of the peer review process. Reviewers should refrain from revealing the identities of authors or other reviewers without explicit permission from the journal.

2. Impartiality and Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted impartially and based solely on the quality and scientific merit of the work, without personal bias. Reviewers must assess the manuscript without any prejudice or favoritism. Personal relationships, conflicts of interest, or competing interests should never influence the evaluation of the manuscript.

3. Competence and Expertise

Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they possess the relevant expertise to assess the quality and validity of the research. If a reviewer feels that they are not qualified to review a particular submission, they should decline to participate and notify the editorial board. Providing constructive, informed feedback is crucial for maintaining the quality of the review process.

4. Timeliness

Reviewers must complete their reviews in a timely manner, adhering to deadlines set by the journal. Delays in the review process can significantly affect the publication timeline and may compromise the journal’s ability to publish valuable research in a timely fashion. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review due to time constraints, they should inform the editorial board promptly.

5. Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be constructive and respectful, aimed at helping the author improve the manuscript. Reviewers should provide clear, detailed, and well-reasoned feedback on both the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Negative comments should be presented in a way that is professional and offers suggestions for improvement. Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and offensive language.

6. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality in evaluating the manuscript. Conflicts of interest can arise from personal, financial, academic, or professional relationships with the author(s) or the research itself. If a conflict exists, reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript and inform the editorial board immediately.

7. Acknowledgment of Sources and Plagiarism

Reviewers are responsible for identifying any potential issues with plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other ethical violations in the manuscript. If a reviewer suspects that the manuscript contains plagiarized content or has been previously published without proper citation, they must inform the editorial board. Reviewers should also check that appropriate citations are included for all sources referenced in the work.

8. Respect for Authors

Reviewers should respect the authors and their work, offering feedback in a constructive and professional manner. They should avoid making any comments that could harm the author’s reputation or dignity. Any feedback provided should focus on the manuscript’s academic content, not the author personally.

9. Non-Use of Manuscript Information

Reviewers should not use any information from the manuscript under review for personal or professional gain. This includes refraining from using unpublished ideas, results, or methodologies described in the manuscript for their own research or other purposes.

10. Recommendation for Publication

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring that only high-quality, credible research is published. After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation regarding its publication. The recommendation may be acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection, along with justifications based on the manuscript’s scientific merit and relevance.