Obligations of reviewers


  • contribution to the editorial conclusions;
  • an expert review is a mandatory step towards the adoption of editorial decisions and, if necessary, towards improvement of the paper by means of editorial correspondence with the author.


The reviewer appeals to the reviewer suffering a skill gap with the research contained in the manuscript, or if he is aware of lack of time that makes the review impossible at the appointed time, he should inform the editor and relieve himself from the review process.


Any manuscript and additional materials received for the review should be considered as confidential documents. It could not be demonstrated and discussed with the third party except a situation permitted by the editor.

Standards of objectivity:

  • reviews should be objective;
  • a personal criticism of the author is forbidden;
  • judges have to get their point across on the controversial arguments.

Confirmation of the sources:

  • reviewers should specify appropriate published articles the authors have not mentioned / cited;
  • any statement that observations, conclusions, or proposals have been previously issued should be confirmed by an appropriate citation;
  • a reviewer also undertakes to indicate the chances of any important similarity or coincidence between the reviewed manuscript and any other published document.

Disclosure and conflict of the interest:

  • the privileged information or arguments obtained by virtue of expert review should be kept confidentiality, and it should not be not used to gain personal or the third part benefits.
  • reviewers should be released from the obligation to review manuscripts in the case of conflict of interest emerging as a result of joint, competitive or other relationships or relationships with any author, company / institution related to a manuscript.

Misconduct of reviewers:

  • editors are committed to the performance of the reviewers and investigate any fact of breach of confidentiality, distrust of conflicting interest (both financial and non-financial), misuse of confidential materials or delayed expert review in an attempt to achieve some competitive advantages;
  • a claim of the gross misconduct of the reviewer (for example, plagiarism) will be placed for consideration of the editorial board;
  • all the manuscripts submitted for review and publication in "Adaptive Management: Theory and Practice" come under double blind inspection of the authenticity, ethics issues and useful contributions.

The decision of the Reviewers is the only option for publication in the magazine, and it is final.