Reviewer Guidelines
Spectrum adopts a peer review model designed to be agile, objective, and constructive, without compromising scientific rigor. The reviewer's role is not to act as an obstacle to publication, but rather as a technical validator who ensures the integrity, clarity, and reproducibility of the communicated science.
Below are the normative guidelines that govern the actions of our reviewing body:
- Ethical Principles and Conduct
- Strict Confidentiality: The manuscript is a confidential document. The reviewer may not share, discuss, print for third parties, or use the research data prior to its official publication.
- Conflict of Interest: The reviewer must immediately decline the invitation upon identifying any conflict of interest (e.g., recent co-authorship with the authors, close institutional affiliation, financial ties, or personal animosity).
- Professionalism and Objectivity: Critiques must focus exclusively on the scientific content of the article. Hostile or sarcastic comments, as well as personal attacks on the authors, are unacceptable and will result in the dismissal of the review and the removal of the reviewer from our board.
- Alert on Ethical Malpractice: If the reviewer suspects plagiarism, data manipulation, undeclared use of generative AI (in violation of our policies), or redundant publications (salami slicing), they must confidentially notify the Associate Editor.
- Scope and Focus of the Technical Evaluation
Spectrum follows a model that prioritizes methodological rigor and technical accuracy over subjective perceptions of "impact" or "disruptive novelty." The reviewer has a duty to assess:
- Technical Accuracy: Is the methodology solid and appropriate for the problem? Were the experiments and simulations well-designed?
- Reproducibility: Does the article provide sufficient details and data for another researcher to independently replicate the study?
- Data Analysis: Are the conclusions adequately supported by the presented results?
- Clarity and Structure: Is the text logical, fluid, and grammatically correct? Are the figures and tables legible and do they add value?
- Literature Relevance: Is the literature review current, comprehensive, and does it adequately acknowledge the state of the art?
- Deadlines and Commitment
Agility is a pillar of the journal. To ensure respect for the authors, we expect reviewers to adhere to the following commitments:
- Accept or decline the review invitation within 28 days.
- Complete and submit the full review report in the system within 28 days of accepting the review assignment.
- In the event of an unforeseen circumstance, notify the editorial team as soon as possible so that the article can be reassigned, avoiding delays for the authors.
