For Reviewers
By accepting an invitation to review with a MERAA journal, reviewers agree to act in accordance with generally accepted publication ethics and best practices based on the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers of the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE ( https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).
Editorial board require peer reviewers to maintain the confidentiality of peer review and peer reviewer comments and not reveal any details of a manuscript or communications related to it, during or after the peer review process. Confidentiality obligation extends to whole review process and all communications regarding the review. The requirement of an ethical approach of reviewers also applies to the uploading manuscripts (or any parts of manuscripts including figures and tables) into Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools/large language models (LLMs) - manuscripts does not uploated into this tools.
A peer review is a documented, critical review performed by peers, persons having technical expertise in the subject matter to be reviewed to a degree at least equivalent to that needed for the original work. Reviewers are independent of the work being reviewed. Independence from the work being reviewed means that the peer was not involved as a participant, supervisor, technical reviewer, or advisor in the work being reviewed, and to the extent practical, has sufficient freedom from funding considerations to assure the work is impartially reviewed.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal editor will be reviewed by 2 independent peers. MERAA uses double-blind review (both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process).
Peer-review report (review form) will be sent to corresponding author.
The final decision on accepting a manuscript for publication is made by the executive editorial board.
All reviewers has to accept and respect the MERAA rules and policies (see Statements).