Reviewer statement in the quarterly Journal of Geography and Regional Future Studies

(unity of procedure, fair judgment, constructive criticism)

Ethical principles of reviewing: due to the expansion of the research culture and submission of the results of researchers' works to scientific research journals for evaluation and publication, the necessity of creating unity in reviewing articles and observing the ethics of reviewing has become inevitable. It is natural that the final outcome of the investigations of many faculty members is in some way tied to the way of reviewing and judgment of journals. While emphasizing that the matter of justice has special importance and sensitivity in all matters, it is appropriate for all respected reviewers, in the position of scientific judgment, to meditate more on the content of the articles and consider the whole article as an effective scientific work in the field of “Spatial planning, regional planning, and future research”, apart from evaluating the written and structural details.

The respected editorial board of the quarterly Journal of Geography and Regional Future Studies needs the accurate and expert opinion of the reviewers to make a fair judgment on the submitted articles. In order to improve the quality of the articles, an ideal reviewer should ask the author constructive questions, while reading the manuscript carefully and deeply, and prevent the publication of low-quality articles by giving their opinions. Undoubtedly, the role of reviewers in a journal is very sensitive and fundamental, and basically, they have two important roles:

• First, they comment on the scientific value of an article for publication (usually after revision).
• Second, they provide their constructive criticism to the authors without considering the acceptance or rejection of the article.

Many of the reviewers have a good ability to present their first role, but it is necessary to intervene more powerfully to enhance the second role as a constructive role in improving the quality of the manuscripts. In fact, a reviewer plays the role of a good consultant for the authors, and in other words, it is appropriate for the respected reviewer to see and point out to the author everything that has not been seen by the author. Therefore, a reviewer can be as helpful as a fellow researcher, or a mentor and advisor, or even a sympathetic critic.

Common Sense rules in judging matters have a common principle for all judges. This principle means that "reviewers should judge as they would like to be judged", for example, as reviewers like to be treated with respect, they should also treat an article and authors with respect.

Reasons for accepting or rejecting articles: There are many reasons for rejecting or accepting articles. For unanimity and fair judgment, it is better to have a review of these reasons that can be useful for both reviewers and young writers. Usually, the reasons for accepting an article include the relevance of the article to the mission of the journal, proper statement of the problem, the purpose, methodology, findings with the final conclusion and implications of the article, the use of new international scientific sources, and other features that can be interesting for the reviewers. On the other hand, the common reasons for the rejection of manuscripts include incomplete and outdated statistics and information, not providing an acceptable research background, using inappropriate data measurement and analysis tools, and making unnecessary conclusions from the findings, or the article with a promotional and applied approach distancing itself from the research approach and movement in the boundaries of knowledge to produce science. Although these types of articles are valuable, they are not suitable for publication in scientific journals.

Systematic approach to article review: The first question that needs to be answered by the reviewer is whether this article is related to the journal in question or not. While screening the received articles, it is necessary that the editors of the journal, provide the reviewers with articles related to the purpose of the journal. Positive bias (unfair publication of the article) or negative one (unfair rejection of the article) is an important issue in the review of articles. Therefore, a completely confidential, double-blind review method is implemented. Another issue of concern is that the reviewers have sufficient knowledge of the subject of the article submitted for review. A good judgment requires knowledge and mastery of the scientific subject in question. If you consider the reviewing of the article to be out of your scope of work and experience, please withdraw from the reviewing to respect the rights of the authors. The fact is that it is not possible to recommend specific ways for reviewers to read the article, and there is no clear and explicit method and each reviewer has their unique method to do this. Some of them prefer to have a quick and superficial review of the article, which is not pleasant and is against scientific and reviewing ethics. It is suggested that reviewers allocate at least 2 hours for judging an article according to the standard.

• The reviewers help the editor of the journal in the quality, content, and scientific review of the articles, or help improve the quality and content of the manuscripts through the communication of the editorial members with the respected author.
• Since the process of reviewing an article is one of the basic stages of accepting an article, when the reviewers are unable to judge the article due to any reason, whether the topic of the article is not in their field of work or expertise, or the length of the judging process, etc., they should withdraw from reviewing the article.
• The reviewers must keep the information obtained during the review secret and not use it for personal gain. The reviewer should feel responsible for the principle of non-conflict of interest when judging an article that is with one of his own articles that has been published or is in the process of being printed, and if he feels that it is in conflict with his work, he should immediately return the article to the editor and inform him of the conditions of conflict of interest or possible exploitation.
• The reviewers must try to keep the articles submitted for review confidential, and all the information contained in the articles is considered confidential for the reviewers as well.
• The reviewers should examine the referencing and sources used in the article. It is reminded that all research, sources, and quotations used in the article must be accompanied by full references.
• The reviewers must inform the journal office of any similarity or overlap between the articles under review or those published in other issues.
• The reviewers must submit their opinions regarding the publication or non-publication of the article at the appointed time. The delay in reviewing the article seems to be normal, however, the reviewers should inform the editor about the possible delay and set a new time for the reviewing.
• Judging articles should be based on scientific documentation and sufficient reasoning, clearly expressed, and these documents should be presented to the journal and authors, and reviewers should refrain from expressing personal, racial, religious, etc. opinions in judging articles.

Reviewer membership link on Publons