Instructions for Reviewers
This section (“For Reviewers”) provides guidelines and information for reviewers participating in the peer-review process of the journal Central Asian Transactions on Materials Structure and Properties.
Central Asian Transactions on Materials Structure and Properties invites qualified experts to review submitted manuscripts. Below are detailed guidelines and a suggested form for reviewer feedback.
1. General Principles
- Reviewers should have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript and relevant research experience.
- Reviews must be objective, fair, and confidential.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline to evaluate manuscripts if they have personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors.
- Review Timeline: Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluation within 4-6 weeks of receiving the manuscript.
2. Review Criteria
Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:
| № | Criterion | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Overall assessment and relevance of the topic | Does the manuscript fit the journal’s scope? Is the topic timely, significant, and well-justified? |
| 2 | Scientific novelty and quality of research | Are the results new, methodology appropriate, and conclusions valid? |
| 3 | Structure and clarity of presentation | Is the manuscript logically organized? Are materials clearly presented? Are there stylistic or technical errors? |
| 4 | Weaknesses and recommendations for revision | What aspects should be corrected, strengthened, or supplemented? |
| 5 | Overall recommendation | Accept / Accept after minor revisions / Major revisions required / Reject. |
3. Suggested Electronic Review Form
Field 1 – Overall assessment and relevance of the topic
[Briefly describe whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, and how relevant and well-justified the topic is.]
Field 2 – Scientific novelty and quality of research
[Evaluate the novelty of results, correctness of methodology, and reliability of conclusions.]
Field 3 – Structure and clarity of presentation
[Assess the logical structure, clarity of materials, and the presence of stylistic or technical errors.]
Field 4 – Weaknesses and recommendations for revision
[Provide specific comments on what should be corrected, improved, or supplemented.]
Field 5 – Overall recommendation
Select one:
- Accept
- Accept after minor revisions
- Major revisions required
- Reject
4. Additional Guidelines
- Reviews should provide constructive feedback without personal criticism of the authors.
- Comments must be specific, justified, and verifiable.
- Reviewers may recommend additional sources or methodological corrections to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must not use or disclose any information from the manuscript before publication.