3. Responsibility of Reviewers of Scientific Publications (Including Monographs)

1. Each submitted manuscript is anonymized and sent to two or three reviewers for peer review.
2. The involvement of an interested party in the review preparation process is not allowed; a co-author of a manuscript of a scientific publication may not be a reviewer.
3. When reviewing a manuscript, a reviewer should assess the results obtained by an author, the author's competence and the scientific significance of the paper, making precise critical remarks.
4. A reviewer is responsible for the impartiality of the review process. The review must not be superficial, unduly favorable or unduly unfavorable. The reviewer's judgement must not be influenced by personal reasons (professional, political, religious, ideological, gender, etc. convictions).
5. A reviewer must assess and declare possible financial and non-financial conflicts-of-interest and refuse to review a manuscript if he/she is unable to carry it out for objective reasons.
6. A reviewer should notify an editor-in-chief if a large part of the manuscript under review is very similar to an existing publication.
7. Confidentiality must be respected in the peer review process. A reviewer must not use the manuscript submitted for review for personal gain.
8. A reviewer may only undertake the review and assessment of manuscripts that are within his/her competence. If the content of the manuscript to be checked exceeds his/her competence, he/she should refuse to review it.