Editorial decisions Reviewers should support the Editor-in-Chief in decision-making and authors in correcting errors.
Reviewers who cannot review a work or know they will not be able to submit a review within an agreed time limit should inform the Editorial Board Secretary about that.
All reviewed works should be treated as confidential documents. They cannot be shown to or discussed with third parties who are not authorised members of the Editorial Board.
All reviews are made anonymously; neither does the Editor reveal information on authors to reviewers.
Reviews should be objective. Derogatory personal remarks are inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions and provide adequate arguments. All doubts as well as critical and polemical comments should be included in the review.
Conflict of interests and its disclosure
Confidential information and ideas arising as a result of a review must be kept secret and cannot be used for personal benefits. Reviewers should not review works of authors if there is a conflict of interests resulting from their close relationship.
Confirmation of sources
Reviewers should enumerate publications that an author has not referred to. Whatever statements are made about observations, sources or arguments that had been previously discussed should be supported by an adequate citation. Reviewers should also inform the Editorial Board Secretary about any substantial similarities or partial overlaps noticed.