Tech Forum Publishing
Contact Us

Guide for Reviewers

On this page

Last updated: 28 August 2025

This Guide for Reviewers applies to all individuals invited to evaluate manuscripts submitted to journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP. It should be read together with the policies and author instructions of the relevant journal.

Peer reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality, credibility, fairness, and integrity of scholarly publishing. Reviewers provide independent expert advice to editors and constructive scholarly feedback to authors. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal’s editors.

All journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP operate under the Diamond Open Access model. Authors are not charged submission fees, article processing charges, publication fees, page charges, or mandatory open-access fees. Published articles are made freely and permanently available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0).

Research manuscripts are evaluated through a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are informed of the authors’ names and affiliations, while reviewer identities normally remain confidential.

1. Purpose and Reviewer Responsibilities

A reviewer’s primary responsibility is to provide a fair, independent, evidence-based, and constructive evaluation of the manuscript. The review should help the editor determine whether the work is suitable for publication and should help the authors improve the accuracy, clarity, transparency, and scholarly value of their manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • evaluate manuscripts impartially and independently;
  • review only manuscripts for which they possess suitable subject or methodological expertise;
  • identify and disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest;
  • maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and editorial process;
  • complete the review within the period stated in the invitation;
  • provide clear, specific, respectful, and useful comments;
  • distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
  • support major criticisms with appropriate reasoning or evidence;
  • identify important ethical, methodological, statistical, or reporting concerns;
  • avoid discriminatory, hostile, defamatory, or personally insulting language;
  • avoid requests intended to increase citations to the reviewer, journal, institution, or associated research group;
  • protect the authors’ unpublished ideas, methods, data, results, and intellectual property;
  • comply with the publisher’s confidentiality, privacy, publication-ethics, and generative AI policies; and
  • accept responsibility for the accuracy, quality, and integrity of the submitted review.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript on its scholarly merits. Evaluations must not be influenced by an author’s nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, political views, institutional affiliation, professional status, geographical location, or ability to pay.

The Diamond Open Access status of the journal must not affect the rigor or independence of the review. Reviewers must apply the same scholarly and ethical standards that they would apply to research submitted to any reputable peer-reviewed journal.

A reviewer is not responsible for making the final publication decision. The reviewer should provide a reasoned recommendation, but the editor may reach a different decision after considering all reports, the manuscript, journal policy, and any ethical or methodological advice.

Reviewers should not attempt to rewrite the entire manuscript or impose their personal writing style, theoretical preference, or methodological tradition where the authors’ approach is scientifically valid. Comments should focus on changes necessary to improve the reliability, clarity, significance, and presentation of the work.

2. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation, the reviewer should examine the manuscript title, abstract, article type, subject area, expected deadline, and any available author information.

A reviewer should accept the invitation only when:

  • the manuscript falls substantially within the reviewer’s area of expertise;
  • the reviewer can evaluate the study design, analysis, and conclusions competently;
  • the reviewer has sufficient time to complete a careful review by the stated deadline;
  • the reviewer has no disqualifying conflict of interest;
  • the reviewer can maintain confidentiality; and
  • the reviewer can provide an independent and professional assessment.

A reviewer should decline the invitation when:

  • the subject or methodology falls outside the reviewer’s competence;
  • the reviewer cannot complete the review within the required period;
  • a financial, personal, academic, professional, institutional, or intellectual conflict may affect impartiality;
  • the reviewer has been involved in the research or preparation of the manuscript;
  • the reviewer has already reviewed substantially the same manuscript for another journal and confidentiality obligations prevent further participation;
  • the reviewer cannot access or evaluate essential manuscript files;
  • the reviewer recognizes that the manuscript is outside the journal’s scope but lacks the expertise to assess it fully; or
  • another circumstance prevents a fair and independent review.

Review invitations should be accepted or declined promptly. Delayed responses may unnecessarily extend the editorial process.

A reviewer who accepts an invitation but later becomes unable to complete the review should inform the editorial office immediately. The reviewer should not wait until the review deadline has passed.

When declining, a reviewer may recommend qualified alternative reviewers. Suggested reviewers should be independent, appropriately experienced, and free from known conflicts of interest. The reviewer should not suggest close collaborators, students, supervisors, family members, or individuals whose selection could create an appearance of coordinated peer review.

A reviewer must not transfer or delegate an invitation to another person. A colleague, student, postdoctoral researcher, or junior researcher may assist with a review only after prior permission has been obtained from the handling editor.

Where a co-review is approved:

  • the identity of every contributing reviewer must be disclosed to the editor;
  • all contributors must agree to the journal’s confidentiality requirements;
  • the invited reviewer remains responsible for the final report;
  • the report must not be submitted until all contributors approve it; and
  • the contribution should not be concealed from the journal.
3. Conflicts of Interest and Independence

Reviewers must disclose any interest or relationship that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the independence of their assessment.

A conflict of interest may be financial, personal, academic, institutional, professional, political, ideological, or intellectual. The existence of a possible conflict does not always disqualify a reviewer, but it must be disclosed so that the editor can decide whether the review assignment remains appropriate.

A reviewer should normally decline an invitation when:

  • the reviewer works in the same institution, department, research unit, or closely connected organization as an author;
  • the reviewer is a current or recent collaborator of an author;
  • the reviewer has supervised, been supervised by, mentored, or been closely mentored by an author;
  • the reviewer has a close personal, family, or professional relationship with an author;
  • the reviewer has an active dispute, legal conflict, or serious professional disagreement with an author;
  • the reviewer has a financial interest in the research findings, product, method, organization, or publication outcome;
  • the reviewer is involved in directly competing research and access to the manuscript could create an unfair advantage;
  • the reviewer has contributed to the manuscript, research design, data analysis, or interpretation;
  • the reviewer has already advised the authors extensively on the same work;
  • the reviewer has publicly expressed a position that may prevent impartial evaluation; or
  • a reasonable observer might question the reviewer’s independence.

Academic disagreement with an author’s theory, method, interpretation, or previous publication does not automatically constitute a conflict. However, the reviewer should decline when the disagreement is so strong or personal that an objective assessment is unlikely.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts before accepting an invitation. A conflict discovered after accepting the assignment must be reported immediately to the editor.

The editor will decide whether the reviewer should:

  • continue with the review;
  • complete only a limited methodological or specialist assessment;
  • provide information without making a recommendation; or
  • withdraw from the review process.

Reviewers must not use the peer-review process to delay the publication of competing work, obtain access to unpublished findings, promote their own research, harm a professional competitor, or advance a personal, institutional, commercial, or ideological interest.

Reviewers must not request authorship, collaboration, payment, professional advantage, data access, consultancy, employment, or any other personal benefit in exchange for a favorable review.

4. Confidentiality and the Single-Blind Review Process

All manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial messages, and related records are confidential.

Under the journal’s single-blind peer-review process:

  • reviewers receive the authors’ names and affiliations;
  • authors do not normally receive the reviewers’ names;
  • reviewer identities are protected by editors and journal staff;
  • reviewers should not reveal their identities in the report unless disclosure has been expressly authorized; and
  • reviewers must not contact the authors directly about the manuscript.

Reviewer identity may be disclosed only when the reviewer expressly agrees, disclosure is required by law, or disclosure is necessary for an appropriately authorized research-integrity investigation.

Reviewers should avoid including identifying information in:

  • the review report;
  • uploaded attachments;
  • tracked changes;
  • document comments;
  • file names;
  • document properties or metadata; and
  • citations or statements that unnecessarily reveal the reviewer’s identity.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with an unauthorized person;
  • discuss the manuscript publicly or privately outside the authorized review process;
  • post manuscript information on social media, websites, discussion forums, or academic networks;
  • use manuscript content in teaching, presentations, proposals, grant applications, or personal research before publication;
  • retain or distribute copies of the manuscript unnecessarily;
  • contact study participants, institutions, funders, or authors to investigate the manuscript independently;
  • upload manuscript material to an unauthorized similarity-checking, translation, editing, or generative AI service; or
  • use unpublished ideas, methods, data, code, or findings for personal or professional advantage.

If specialist advice is needed, the reviewer must first obtain permission from the editor. The adviser must be identified to the journal and must agree to maintain confidentiality.

Confidential files should be stored only on secure devices and systems. Reviewers should use protected accounts, avoid public or shared computers, and prevent unauthorized access to downloaded files.

After the review process is complete, reviewers should securely delete local manuscript files and related confidential records unless the journal instructs otherwise or retention is required by applicable law.

5. Evaluating the Manuscript

The depth and focus of a review will depend on the article type, discipline, methodology, and stage of evaluation. Reviewers should assess the manuscript as a complete scholarly work while giving particular attention to the areas within their expertise.

Relevance and contribution:

  • Does the manuscript fall within the journal’s aims and scope?
  • Is the research question important and clearly stated?
  • Does the work make an identifiable contribution to knowledge, theory, methodology, policy, education, clinical practice, professional practice, or future research?
  • Is the claimed originality supported?
  • Does the manuscript distinguish its contribution from previous studies?

Title, abstract, and keywords:

  • Does the title accurately and concisely represent the article?
  • Does the abstract state the objective, methods, principal results, and conclusion?
  • Are the claims in the abstract consistent with the main text?
  • Are the keywords specific and relevant?
  • Does the title or abstract contain exaggerated, promotional, or unsupported claims?

Introduction and research context:

  • Is the background sufficient to understand the study?
  • Is the relevant literature represented accurately and fairly?
  • Is the research gap or problem clearly identified?
  • Are the objective, research question, or hypotheses stated clearly?
  • Does the introduction avoid unnecessary repetition or an excessively broad literature review?

Methodology:

  • Is the research design appropriate for the question?
  • Are the population, sample, materials, setting, procedures, variables, instruments, and interventions described adequately?
  • Is the sampling method appropriate and sufficiently explained?
  • Are inclusion and exclusion criteria clear?
  • Are analytical methods appropriate and reproducible?
  • Are software, models, parameters, and statistical procedures identified where relevant?
  • Are important assumptions, limitations, and sources of bias addressed?
  • Are validation, sensitivity, robustness, or reliability checks adequate?
  • Are methods described in enough detail to permit scholarly evaluation and reasonable replication?

For quantitative studies, reviewers should consider:

  • sample size and statistical power;
  • selection of statistical tests;
  • treatment of missing data and outliers;
  • assumptions underlying the analysis;
  • effect sizes and measures of uncertainty;
  • multiple comparisons;
  • model specification and validation;
  • confounding and sources of bias;
  • consistency between data, analysis, and conclusions; and
  • whether causal claims are justified by the design.

For qualitative studies, reviewers should consider:

  • appropriateness of the qualitative approach;
  • participant or case selection;
  • adequacy of data collection;
  • researcher reflexivity;
  • transparency of coding and analysis;
  • credibility, dependability, and transferability;
  • use of supporting evidence or quotations;
  • attention to alternative interpretations; and
  • consistency between evidence and conclusions.

Results:

  • Are the results presented clearly and logically?
  • Do the reported findings follow from the methods?
  • Are sample sizes, estimates, statistical results, and measures of uncertainty presented appropriately?
  • Are negative, non-significant, unexpected, or contradictory results reported fairly?
  • Are exploratory analyses distinguished from pre-specified analyses?
  • Is information unnecessarily duplicated across the text, tables, and figures?
  • Are all results necessary to support the conclusions available?

Discussion and conclusion:

  • Are the findings interpreted accurately and proportionately?
  • Are the results discussed in relation to relevant previous research?
  • Are alternative explanations considered?
  • Are strengths and limitations acknowledged?
  • Are practical, theoretical, clinical, or policy implications supported by the results?
  • Does the conclusion follow directly from the evidence?
  • Are causal, general, or universal claims appropriately limited?
  • Does the manuscript avoid overstating novelty, certainty, or significance?

Tables, figures, equations, and supplementary material:

  • Are all tables and figures necessary and cited in the correct order?
  • Are titles, captions, labels, legends, symbols, and units understandable?
  • Are figures readable at publication size?
  • Do tables and figures agree with the text?
  • Do images show signs of inappropriate duplication, alteration, concealment, or manipulation?
  • Are equations, notation, and mathematical arguments accurate and consistently presented?
  • Is essential information placed in the main article rather than hidden in supplementary material?
  • Are supplementary files relevant, complete, and appropriately described?

Reporting and reproducibility:

  • Does the manuscript follow an appropriate reporting guideline for the study design?
  • Are protocols, registrations, checklists, or flow diagrams provided where required?
  • Is the data-availability statement adequate?
  • Are code, materials, instruments, and analytical procedures described sufficiently?
  • Are restrictions on data or materials explained?
  • Could another qualified researcher understand and reasonably evaluate the work?

Reviewers should not demand unnecessary experiments, analyses, citations, or manuscript expansion. Requests for additional work should be limited to what is necessary to establish the reliability, interpretation, or scholarly contribution of the study.

Where a suggested analysis or experiment would improve the article but is not essential for validity, it should be identified as optional rather than mandatory.

6. Preparing a Constructive Review Report

A useful review report should be clear, organized, specific, proportionate, and respectful. It should explain the reasoning behind important recommendations and provide authors with practical guidance.

A review report may be organized as follows:

1. Brief summary: Summarize the manuscript’s objective, approach, and principal contribution in a few sentences. This helps demonstrate that the manuscript has been understood correctly.

2. Overall assessment: Explain the principal strengths and weaknesses and identify the most important issue affecting publication suitability.

3. Major comments: Address matters that affect the validity, originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, ethics, reproducibility, or central conclusions.

4. Minor comments: Address limited clarifications, terminology, presentation, referencing, table or figure details, typographical errors, and other matters that do not alter the central findings.

5. Confidential comments to the editor: Provide the recommendation and any sensitive ethical, conflict, integrity, or procedural information that should not be communicated directly to the authors.

Comments should be numbered and, where possible, linked to page, section, paragraph, table, figure, or line numbers.

Reviewers should:

  • state clearly what the problem is;
  • explain why the issue matters;
  • suggest a realistic way to address it where possible;
  • distinguish errors from differences of scholarly opinion;
  • acknowledge important strengths as well as weaknesses;
  • avoid vague statements such as “the methods are weak” without explanation;
  • avoid demanding major new studies that would effectively create a different article;
  • avoid rewriting the manuscript according to personal stylistic preferences;
  • avoid requesting confidential, identifying, or legally restricted data without justification; and
  • ensure that the tone remains professional throughout.

Comments must address the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics, competence, motives, nationality, language background, institution, or reputation of the authors.

Unacceptable comments include:

  • personal insults or humiliation;
  • discriminatory or stereotypical statements;
  • threats or retaliation;
  • unsupported allegations of misconduct communicated directly to the authors;
  • sarcasm intended to ridicule the authors;
  • comments unrelated to the scholarly evaluation;
  • requests for personal favors or professional benefit; and
  • demands that authors cite irrelevant publications.

When language problems affect readability, reviewers should identify representative examples and explain whether the problem is minor, substantial, or prevents reliable scientific evaluation.

Reviewers are not expected to provide complete copyediting or language rewriting. A manuscript should not be recommended for rejection solely because the authors are not native English speakers when the scholarly content can be understood and the language can reasonably be corrected.

The recommendation should be consistent with the written comments. A severe recommendation should be supported by clearly identified major concerns.

Available recommendations may include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
  • Minor revision: Limited changes are required, but the central methods, results, and conclusions are generally reliable.
  • Major revision: Substantial clarification, additional analysis, restructuring, or methodological explanation is required before publication can be considered.
  • Reject and invite resubmission: Fundamental changes are required, and a substantially revised manuscript should be treated as a new submission.
  • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable because of major problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision or because it falls outside the journal’s scope.

Where the journal system separates comments to authors from confidential comments to the editor, the recommendation should normally be placed in the confidential section. Reviewers should avoid telling authors that the manuscript will definitely be accepted or rejected.

The editor may edit or remove abusive language, identifying information, inappropriate citation requests, personal data, or irrelevant comments before transmitting a report. The scientific substance of an appropriate review will not be altered without a valid reason.

7. Ethics, Research Integrity, and Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should remain alert to possible ethical, legal, and research-integrity concerns, including:

  • plagiarism or unattributed copying;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • simultaneous submission;
  • fabrication or falsification of data;
  • inappropriate image manipulation;
  • inconsistent or implausible results;
  • fabricated or unverifiable references;
  • paper-mill activity;
  • misleading or incomplete authorship information;
  • undisclosed competing interests;
  • false or inadequate ethics approval;
  • absence of required informed consent;
  • unprotected participant or patient information;
  • unregistered or improperly reported clinical trials;
  • citation manipulation;
  • peer-review manipulation;
  • unlawful reuse of copyrighted material;
  • misuse of confidential or restricted data;
  • undisclosed or deceptive generative AI use; and
  • conclusions that seriously misrepresent the presented evidence.

A reviewer who identifies a possible integrity concern should report it privately to the handling editor. The report should describe the concern objectively and include specific locations, examples, sources, or evidence where available.

Reviewers should not:

  • accuse the authors directly of misconduct;
  • contact the authors, their institution, employer, ethics committee, funder, or research participants;
  • conduct an independent public investigation;
  • share the concern with colleagues or online communities;
  • upload the manuscript to an unauthorized plagiarism, image-analysis, or AI-detection service;
  • make public allegations; or
  • treat suspicion as established fact.

The editor and publisher are responsible for determining whether further information, specialist assessment, author clarification, institutional contact, or another action is required.

Reviewers should distinguish between:

  • an honest error;
  • inadequate reporting;
  • a methodological weakness;
  • a legitimate scholarly disagreement;
  • a questionable research practice; and
  • possible deliberate misconduct.

Research involving human participants, personal data, clinical information, human tissue, animals, vulnerable populations, or sensitive subjects should receive particular attention.

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript includes:

  • the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board;
  • an approval or reference number where available;
  • an explanation where formal approval was not required;
  • appropriate informed-consent information;
  • consent for publication of identifiable information;
  • adequate protection of privacy and confidentiality;
  • appropriate animal-welfare approval and procedures; and
  • trial registration where applicable.

A reviewer should not request access to identifiable participant data, confidential clinical records, proprietary information, or restricted datasets unless access is essential to resolve a specific and serious concern. Such requests must be communicated through the editor.

8. Citations, References, and APA Style

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP journals use the American Psychological Association reference style, 7th edition, unless a journal expressly states otherwise.

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript cites relevant literature accurately, fairly, and sufficiently. Reviewers are not expected to copyedit or completely reformat every reference, but they should identify material problems.

The review should consider whether:

  • the author–date citation system is used consistently;
  • every in-text citation has a corresponding reference-list entry;
  • every reference-list entry is cited in the manuscript;
  • the literature review includes relevant and reasonably current research;
  • important opposing or alternative evidence has been considered;
  • references genuinely support the statements for which they are cited;
  • direct quotations include appropriate page or location information;
  • article, book, chapter, report, dataset, and webpage details are sufficiently complete;
  • DOIs are presented in URL form where available;
  • retracted or corrected sources are identified and used appropriately;
  • references appear to be authentic and verifiable; and
  • citations have not been added primarily to manipulate citation metrics.

Common APA in-text forms include:

  • one author: (Ahmed, 2024) or Ahmed (2024);
  • two authors: (Ahmed & Müller, 2024) or Ahmed and Müller (2024);
  • three or more authors: (Ahmed et al., 2024);
  • multiple sources: (Ahmed, 2022; Khan & Lee, 2024; Müller et al., 2023); and
  • direct quotation: (Ahmed, 2024, p. 17).

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are directly relevant and necessary to:

  • support a factual or theoretical claim;
  • acknowledge foundational research;
  • address important contrary evidence;
  • correct a misleading claim of novelty;
  • justify a method or analytical choice; or
  • place the findings in an appropriate scholarly context.

Recommended citations should be accompanied by a brief scholarly reason. Reviewers must not require authors to cite:

  • the reviewer’s publications merely to increase personal citations;
  • articles from the journal merely to increase journal metrics;
  • publications from a particular institution or research group without scholarly justification;
  • irrelevant or only marginally related studies; or
  • a large block of references that does not materially improve the manuscript.

Where a reviewer suspects that a reference is fabricated, misquoted, retracted, or does not support the associated statement, the reviewer should identify the specific reference and explain the concern.

Reviewers should not rely solely on titles, abstracts, search-engine snippets, generative AI output, or secondary citations when making serious claims about a source. The original publication should be checked where reasonably possible.

9. Generative AI and Other External Tools

Reviewers must comply with the publisher’s Generative AI Policies.

A submitted manuscript is confidential. Reviewers must not upload or enter any part of a manuscript, supplementary file, review report, editorial message, unpublished data, author information, or research-integrity concern into a public or external generative AI system where confidentiality, data retention, security, model training, and lawful processing cannot be assured.

This restriction applies to tools used for:

  • summarizing manuscripts;
  • drafting reviewer reports;
  • assessing originality or novelty;
  • checking references;
  • translating manuscript content;
  • rewriting or editing review comments;
  • analyzing confidential data or code;
  • identifying possible misconduct;
  • evaluating images;
  • calculating publication recommendations; or
  • making acceptance or rejection decisions.

Reviewers must personally read and evaluate the manuscript. They must not delegate the intellectual work of peer review to an AI system.

Generative AI must not make or determine the reviewer’s recommendation. A reviewer remains responsible for:

  • the scientific accuracy of the report;
  • the validity of criticisms;
  • the appropriateness of suggested revisions;
  • the tone and fairness of the comments;
  • the protection of confidential information; and
  • the final recommendation submitted to the journal.

An AI-assisted tool may be used only when:

  • the journal or publisher has expressly authorized its use;
  • the system provides adequate confidentiality and security protections;
  • manuscript content is not retained or used for external model training;
  • the processing complies with applicable data-protection and copyright requirements;
  • the reviewer discloses the tool and purpose to the editor; and
  • all output is independently verified by the reviewer.

Basic spelling correction or local non-generative editing tools may be used for mechanical improvement of the reviewer’s own comments where the tool does not transmit or retain confidential manuscript information. The reviewer remains responsible for ensuring that the tool does not alter the scientific meaning of the report.

Automated AI-detection tools must not be treated as conclusive evidence that authors used generative AI improperly. Such systems may produce false or misleading results. A concern should be based on identifiable evidence and communicated privately to the editor.

Reviewers must not use external plagiarism, image-forensics, reference-verification, translation, or statistical services without authorization when doing so would require uploading confidential manuscript content.

10. Timeliness, Revised Manuscripts, and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they can complete a careful evaluation within the deadline provided by the journal.

If additional time is needed, the reviewer should request an extension as early as possible. The request should state whether the reviewer can complete the review within a reasonable revised period.

A reviewer should not submit a rushed, superficial, or incomplete report merely to meet the deadline. Where a proper review cannot be completed, the reviewer should notify the journal promptly so that another reviewer may be invited.

Reviewers should respond to editorial questions about their report when clarification is reasonably required. However, reviewers are not expected to engage in direct debate with authors outside the journal’s managed review process.

When reviewing a revised manuscript, the reviewer should normally examine:

  • the revised manuscript;
  • the authors’ point-by-point response;
  • changes made in response to previous comments;
  • the adequacy of explanations where a requested change was not made;
  • whether revisions created new inconsistencies or errors;
  • whether major ethical, methodological, analytical, or reporting concerns remain; and
  • whether the revised conclusions are supported by the updated manuscript.

Reviewers should not introduce substantial new requirements during a later review round unless:

  • the new issue was created by the revision;
  • important information was added or revealed;
  • a serious ethical or validity concern was previously overlooked;
  • the authors’ response exposes a fundamental problem; or
  • the additional request is essential to the reliability of the article.

A reviewer should not insist on a previously requested change when the authors have provided a scientifically valid alternative or a well-supported explanation.

Reviewers should distinguish between issues that:

  • have been fully resolved;
  • have been partly resolved;
  • remain unresolved but do not prevent publication;
  • remain essential to publication suitability; and
  • require specialist editorial or ethical consideration.

Editorial decisions are made by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers must not:

  • contact authors to communicate an anticipated decision;
  • promise acceptance or threaten rejection;
  • discuss the decision publicly;
  • attempt to pressure the editor after submitting the review;
  • retaliate when the editor does not follow the recommendation; or
  • assume that disagreement with the recommendation indicates misconduct or poor editorial practice.

The editor may reach a decision different from the reviewer’s recommendation after considering other reports, specialist advice, author responses, journal scope, publication priorities, and ethical requirements.

11. Professional Conduct, Recognition, and Contact

Reviewers must communicate professionally throughout the peer-review process. Communications with editors and journal staff should be respectful, accurate, and limited to matters relevant to manuscript evaluation.

Reviewers must not:

  • use abusive, intimidating, discriminatory, or defamatory language;
  • request personal or financial benefits;
  • solicit authorship, collaboration, employment, consultancy, data access, or professional favors;
  • use review assignments to promote commercial products or services;
  • misrepresent their identity, affiliation, expertise, qualifications, or publication record;
  • create or use a false reviewer account;
  • recommend a fabricated or controlled reviewer identity;
  • allow another person to submit a report under their name without authorization;
  • manipulate the review process; or
  • make misleading claims concerning the journal’s indexing, metrics, acceptance standards, or reputation.

Reviewers should ensure that their account information, institutional affiliation, email address, subject expertise, and researcher identifiers remain accurate.

The journal may recognize reviewer service through:

  • a reviewer certificate;
  • a confirmation letter;
  • an annual acknowledgement of reviewers;
  • an approved reviewer-recognition service; or
  • another form of professional recognition that does not compromise confidential peer review.

Reviewer names will not be linked publicly to a specific manuscript without the reviewer’s consent and appropriate editorial authorization.

A reviewer may request confirmation of completed review service. The journal may decline to issue recognition where a report was incomplete, inappropriate, fraudulent, substantially late without explanation, or inconsistent with the journal’s standards.

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP may suspend or remove a reviewer from future assignments when the reviewer:

  • repeatedly submits inadequate or unprofessional reports;
  • violates manuscript or reviewer confidentiality;
  • fails to disclose a serious conflict of interest;
  • uses abusive or discriminatory language;
  • engages in coercive citation practices;
  • misuses generative AI or external tools;
  • impersonates another person or provides false credentials;
  • manipulates the peer-review process;
  • uses unpublished manuscript content improperly; or
  • otherwise acts in a manner that threatens the integrity of the journal.

Questions about a review assignment, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, deadlines, co-reviewing, or acceptable use of external tools should be sent to the editorial office before the reviewer proceeds.

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP
Allee 1
45143 Essen
Germany

Reviewer enquiries may also be submitted through the publisher’s official Contact page or the editorial office of the relevant journal.