Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a fundamental role in maintaining the scientific quality of Youth in Central and Eastern Europe. Their expertise, independence and professional integrity constitute the foundation of the peer-review process and contribute to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing.

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, which means that authors do not know the identity of reviewers and reviewers do not know the identity of authors. The review process is conducted in accordance with the principles of transparency, confidentiality, impartiality and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, fair and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Reviews should focus on the scientific quality of the work and provide clear, well-reasoned comments that are helpful both to the authors and to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers should assess manuscripts solely on their academic merit and adhere to the highest standards of research integrity and professional ethics throughout the review process.

2. Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are expected to evaluate, in particular:

  • originality and scientific novelty of the research;
  • importance and relevance of the research topic;
  • methodological rigor and appropriateness of the research design;
  • quality of data analysis and interpretation of the results;
  • consistency between the presented results and the conclusions;
  • adequacy, quality and relevance of the cited literature;
  • logical structure and overall clarity of the manuscript;
  • language quality and editorial presentation.

Review reports should include a clear justification of the recommendation and, whenever possible, provide constructive suggestions that will help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute or discuss submitted manuscripts with third parties without prior permission from the Editorial Office.

Information obtained during the peer-review process must not be used for personal research, professional advantage or any other purpose before publication.

The obligation to maintain confidentiality applies both during and after completion of the review process.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline invitations to review manuscripts whenever an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest could affect the objectivity or impartiality of their assessment.

Conflicts of interest may arise from, among others:

  • previous or ongoing scientific collaboration with the authors;
  • personal or family relationships;
  • institutional or employment relationships;
  • financial interests or funding relationships;
  • joint research projects;
  • any other circumstance that may compromise an independent evaluation.

If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should immediately notify the Editorial Office and decline the review invitation.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or any part of their content to artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot or any other generative AI tools, as this would violate the confidentiality of the peer-review process and could disclose unpublished research.

The use of AI-assisted tools for language editing or grammar checking is acceptable only when manuscript content is not disclosed to third parties.

Regardless of any supporting tools used, reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy and recommendations contained in their review reports.

6. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the deadline specified by the Editorial Office. Timely completion of reviews is essential to ensure an efficient editorial process and provide authors with prompt feedback.

If reviewers are unable to complete a review within the requested timeframe, or if they believe they do not possess sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript, they should immediately inform the Editorial Office so that another reviewer may be appointed.

7. Reviewer Recommendation

Upon completing the review, reviewers are asked to submit one of the following recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief:

  • Accept the manuscript for publication;
  • Accept after minor revisions;
  • Request major revisions and re-review;
  • Reject the manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations should be supported by clear scientific justification and, whenever possible, provide constructive comments that help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory in nature and constitute an important element of the editorial decision-making process.

8. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding the acceptance, revision or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, who considers the independent peer-review reports together with the overall editorial assessment.

Although reviewer recommendations play a fundamental role in evaluating scientific quality, they are not binding on the Editor-in-Chief, who bears ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions and the integrity of the journal.

9. Compliance with COPE Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to comply with the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and to conduct reviews in accordance with the highest standards of research integrity, confidentiality, fairness and professional responsibility.

In matters not explicitly covered by these Reviewer Guidelines, the Editorial Office follows the current recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

10. Recognition of Reviewers

The Editorial Team of Youth in Central and Eastern Europe highly values the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the scientific quality and reputation of the journal. Their expertise, commitment and independent evaluations are essential for ensuring the integrity of the peer-review process.

The peer-review process is conducted under the principles of double-blind peer review. The identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors or third parties unless reviewers explicitly agree to disclose their identity or disclosure is required by applicable law.

The Editorial Office regularly expresses its appreciation to reviewers for their contribution to the journal and may issue individual certificates acknowledging completed peer reviews or outstanding service to the journal while fully respecting the confidentiality of the review process.

As a token of appreciation, the journal publishes an annual list of reviewers who have completed peer reviews during the calendar year. The list is published only with the reviewers' consent and does not disclose any information linking reviewers to specific manuscripts, thereby preserving the integrity of the double-blind peer-review process.

The publication of the annual reviewer acknowledgement recognizes the valuable contribution of reviewers to the development of the journal and to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing.

Reviewers who demonstrate exceptional expertise, consistently provide high-quality reviews, meet review deadlines and actively contribute to the journal's development may be invited to join the Editorial Team or other advisory bodies of the journal.