Peer-review
The Journal of “Transactions on Fuzzy Sets and Systems (TFSS)” follows a Single-Blind peer-review in which the authors do not know the reviewers. Authors have the right to communicate to the editor if they do not wish their manuscript to be reviewed by a particular reviewer because of potential conflicts of interest. No article is rejected unless negative comments are received from at least two reviewers.
Dear Reviewer
- According to the rules of publishing ethics, all the steps should be confidential and not disclosed.
- Review manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work.
- Review multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary.
- Providing all required information within established deadlines.
- Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal.
- Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review.
- Reporting possible research misconducts.
- Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons.
- Treating the manuscript as a confidential document.
- Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.
- Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors.
- Not identifying themselves to authors.
- Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
- Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work.
- Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
- Writing review report in English only.
- Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.
WHAT SHOULD BE CHECKED WHILE REVIEWING A MANUSCRIPT?
- Novelty
- Originality
- Scientific reliability
- Valuable contribution to the science
- Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
- Ethical aspects
- Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
- References provided to substantiate the content
- Grammar, punctuation and spelling
- Scientific misconduct.
Duties of Reviewers
- Contribution to Editorial Decision
- Promptness
- Confidentiality
- Standards of Objectivity
- Acknowledgment of Source
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Some of the Items in "COP-approved" File for Reviewers
- A person asked to accept the task of refereeing a paper may feel that there is a potential personal or professional conflict of interest, for example, when he or she is asked to referee a manuscript from a recent student, collaborator, or colleague. In such cases, the potential referee should discuss with the editor any possible conflicts of interest, and continue to act only with the agreement of the editor.
- A referee who suspects any element of plagiarism in a manuscript under consideration, or any other unethical behaviour, should quickly report these concerns to the editor.
- To ensure your anonymity throughout the peer review process, please do not include any identifying information in your review report either in the comments or in the metadata of any files that you upload.
- Please note any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers' (or their associates') work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers' citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers' work (or that of their associates).
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers