Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to accept or decline the review invitation sent by the Editor or CSP’s Section Editors within seven days. Once they accept a review invitation, reviewers should complete the review process and upload the relevant files to CSP’s journal management system within 20 days.

If reviewers believe they cannot conduct a fair review due to a conflict of interest, they must inform the Editor that they are unable to review the particular article.

Reviewers should carefully read the invitation letter/email sent by the Editor, as the Editor may request specific tasks such as evaluating only the methods section of the article.

If reviewers have received any assistance from other individuals during the evaluation process, they should inform the Editor and provide the names of those who assisted them. The CSP Editorial Board considers acknowledging the contributions of such individuals essential for upholding publication ethics.

Reporting of Reviews

Review reports are expected to focus on the following aspects:

• Does the article contribute significantly to the field of study?
• Is the article scientifically up to date?

Review reports should be written in a critical, clear, and objective manner.

Reviewers are expected to focus on the manuscript content and refrain from personal comments directed at the authors.

In addition to filling in the required evaluation forms, reviewers should provide detailed justifications and highlight any deficiencies, issues, or problems identified in the manuscript.

If the Editor or Section Editors identify inappropriate expressions in review reports, they reserve the right to edit or remove any rude, derogatory, or unprofessional remarks.

Conflict of Interest

Authors may request that the Editor exclude specific individuals from serving as reviewers due to a conflict of interest.

Reviewers should also decline review invitations if they believe that any of the following conditions apply:

• They have previously co-authored or collaborated with the author(s),
• They have provided feedback on earlier drafts of the manuscript,
• They have had prior conflicts with the author(s),
• They may gain financial benefits from the publication of the article,
• They work in the same institution (or department) as the author(s), unless no other reviewers are available.

Since the Editor may not be aware of all potential conflicts, reviewers are expected to proactively inform the Editor of any situation that could compromise the impartiality of their review.

Publication Policy and Ethical Considerations

While the Editor makes every effort to detect ethical issues in submitted manuscripts, reviewers play a key role in identifying potential violations of CSP’s publication policies. Reviewers are encouraged to inform the Editor if they identify any such concerns.

Authors are required to comply with research and publication ethics standards. Manuscripts derived from theses or dissertations should be reported in full, rather than being fragmented into multiple partial publications.

Authors should also declare the contribution of each researcher, acknowledge funding sources, and provide a conflict of interest statement at the end of their article.

Providing Feedback to Reviewers

The final version of accepted articles will only be shared with reviewers who explicitly request to re-evaluate the manuscript.

In some cases, reviewers may feel that their suggestions were not fully reflected in the revised version of the manuscript. Since different reviewers may provide varying perspectives, the Editor may share additional reviewer reports when necessary.

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor may take one of the following decisions:

• Accept the article for publication (with or without revisions),
• Request revisions and initiate another round of review,
• Reject the article.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance or rejection in their reports; however, the final decision rests with the Editor, who evaluates both the reviewers’ feedback and the authors’ responses.