Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a key role in ensuring the high scholarly quality of publications in the journal INSTAL. The peer review process is based on the principles of integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and scientific responsibility.

General Principles

Reviews in INSTAL are conducted under a double-blind peer review procedure, which means that the identities of both Authors and Reviewers remain anonymous. Reviewers are required to provide objective, substantive, and timely evaluations of the manuscripts assigned to them.

Confidentiality

Reviewers are obliged to:

  • treat the reviewed manuscript as a confidential document,

  • refrain from using the content of the manuscript for their own research or publications prior to its publication,

  • not disclose the content of the manuscript to third parties without the consent of the Editorial Board.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should immediately inform the Editorial Board of any potential conflicts of interest, in particular those arising from:

  • personal or professional relationships with the Author(s),

  • institutional affiliations,

  • direct involvement in the research being reviewed.

In the event of a conflict of interest, the Reviewer should decline to conduct the review.

Scope of the Review

The review should include an assessment of:

  • the originality and novelty of the work,

  • methodological and substantive soundness,

  • the adequacy of the research methods applied,

  • the quality of the analysis of results and the validity of the conclusions,

  • the completeness and relevance of the cited literature,

  • thematic consistency with the scope of the journal INSTAL,

  • linguistic accuracy and the overall structure of the manuscript.

Form and Nature of the Review

The review should:

  • be prepared in a clear, factual, and constructive manner,

  • include specific substantive comments and suggestions for improvement,

  • avoid personal remarks or evaluative statements about the Authors,

  • indicate both the strengths of the manuscript and the aspects requiring revision.

Reviewer Recommendation

The Reviewer provides a recommendation regarding the further handling of the manuscript.
The recommendation should be consistent with the content of the review comments.

Timeliness

Reviewers are required to complete the review within the deadline specified by the Editorial Board. If meeting the deadline is not possible, the Reviewer should inform the Editorial Board without delay.

Responsibility and Ethics

Reviewers should notify the Editorial Board of any suspicions concerning:

  • plagiarism or self-plagiarism,

  • scientific misconduct,

  • violations of research ethics,

  • significant similarities to other published works.

Final Provisions

Participation in the peer review process implies acceptance of these guidelines and the publication ethics principles applied by the journal INSTAL.