Peer Review Policy

Geliotekhnika applies a rigorous, fair, confidential, and editorially independent peer review process to protect the quality, validity, originality, and integrity of the research it publishes.

Peer review assists editors in making evidence-based decisions and provides authors with constructive scholarly feedback. The journal’s practices are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the COPE Core Practices, and internationally recognized principles of transparency and good editorial practice.

Scope of Peer Review

The following content normally undergoes external peer review:

  • Original Research Articles;

  • Review Articles;

  • Short Communications;

  • Technical Communications;

  • other manuscripts containing original scientific or engineering findings.

Each manuscript sent for external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Editorials, letters, invited commentaries, announcements, corrections, retraction notices, and other non-research content may undergo editorial assessment rather than external review. The review status of an item exempt from the standard procedure will be identified at publication.

Peer Review Model

The journal uses a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review model:

  • author identities are not disclosed to reviewers;

  • reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors;

  • reviewer reports are not published with the article;

  • all communication between authors and reviewers is conducted through the editorial office.

Authors must remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, identifying references, file metadata, and other information that could reveal their identity. A manuscript may be returned for further anonymization before review begins.

Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where an author’s identity may be inferred from a preprint, public dataset, conference material, self-citation, or other publicly available information.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Before external review, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor considers whether the manuscript:

  • fits the journal’s aims and scope;

  • complies with submission and formatting requirements;

  • demonstrates sufficient originality and scientific relevance;

  • presents an appropriate and adequately described methodology;

  • meets ethical and research integrity requirements;

  • includes declarations on authorship, funding, competing interests, ethics approval, consent, and data availability;

  • is sufficiently clear for academic evaluation.

The editorial office may perform similarity screening, reference checks, authorship verification, and other preliminary integrity checks.

A manuscript may be rejected without external review if it is outside the scope, scientifically or methodologically inadequate, insufficiently original, poorly prepared, ethically problematic, or inconsistent with journal policy. Desk rejection does not imply that the topic lacks scholarly value; it means the submission is unsuitable for further consideration by the journal in its current form.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

  • relevant subject expertise;

  • publication and research experience;

  • independence from the authors and the reported research;

  • absence of actual or potential competing interests;

  • previous review quality and reliability;

  • ability to complete the review within the requested period;

  • professional and ethical conduct.

Scientific competence remains the primary requirement. Where practicable, editors also consider diversity of discipline, methodology, country, institution, career stage, and gender.

A reviewer should not normally work at the same institution as an author, have recently collaborated or co-authored with the authors, have a close personal, supervisory, financial, or professional relationship, be directly interested in competing research, or have participated in preparing the manuscript.

Author-Suggested and Excluded Reviewers

Authors may recommend qualified reviewers or provide a reasoned request to exclude particular individuals. Editors are not required to follow such recommendations.

An author-suggested reviewer must be independent. The editorial office verifies the reviewer’s identity, affiliation, expertise, publication record, and contact details. An institutional email address should be used whenever reasonably available.

At least one reviewer is selected independently of author recommendations. Providing a false identity, fabricated contact details, an email address controlled by an author, or other misleading information constitutes peer review manipulation.

Peer Review Process

The usual process includes:

  1. appointment of a handling editor;

  2. identification and invitation of qualified independent reviewers;

  3. receipt of at least two independent reports;

  4. editorial evaluation of the reports;

  5. communication of the decision and anonymized comments to the authors;

  6. receipt of a revised manuscript and point-by-point response where revision is invited;

  7. further external or editorial evaluation where necessary;

  8. a final editorial decision.

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the period stated in the invitation. Where a report is delayed, incomplete, inappropriate, or insufficiently reasoned, the editor may invite an additional or replacement reviewer.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

  • originality and scientific contribution;

  • clarity of the objectives or research questions;

  • appropriateness and reproducibility of the methodology;

  • validity of experimental, analytical, numerical, or computational procedures;

  • adequacy of verification, validation, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, statistics, or error assessment where applicable;

  • accuracy of tables, figures, equations, models, and supplementary materials;

  • reliability and interpretation of the results;

  • consistency of the conclusions with the evidence;

  • relevance and completeness of the references;

  • transparency concerning data, code, computational models, materials, and methods;

  • compliance with authorship, ethics, and research integrity requirements;

  • clarity, organization, and scholarly presentation.

Reviewers should distinguish essential revisions required for scientific validity from optional suggestions intended to improve presentation. Coercive or irrelevant requests to cite the reviewer’s work or a particular journal are prohibited.

Reviewer Reports

Reports must be objective, evidence-based, specific, constructive, respectful, and sufficiently detailed. Personal criticism, insulting or discriminatory language, hostile comments, and unsupported allegations are prohibited.

A recommendation to reject must include a clear scholarly explanation. Confidential comments to the editor must not contradict the assessment provided to the authors or contain unsupported allegations that the authors cannot address.

Editorial Decisions

Following review, one of the following decisions may be issued:

  • Accept;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision;

  • Reject and Invite Resubmission as a New Manuscript;

  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the final decision after considering the reports, the quality and integrity of the manuscript, the authors’ responses, journal policy, relevance to the scope, and any additional ethical or methodological concerns.

Editors are not required to follow the majority recommendation. Where reports conflict substantially, an additional review may be obtained. Acceptance is not guaranteed until the full editorial and peer review process is complete. Decisions are independent of an author’s ability to pay an article processing charge.

Revisions and Further Review

When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript, a point-by-point response, a description of changes, and a reasoned explanation for any recommendation not followed.

Major revisions are normally returned to one or more original reviewers. Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor without further external review. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Supplementary Materials

Datasets, computer code, models, videos, appendices, and other files may be provided to reviewers where necessary to evaluate the reliability, reproducibility, or interpretation of the study. Confidentiality requirements apply equally to all supplementary materials.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated materials are confidential. Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript or invitation with another person;

  • discuss it outside the authorized editorial process;

  • contact the authors directly;

  • disclose unpublished findings;

  • retain or distribute files after completing the review;

  • use information for personal, academic, competitive, financial, or commercial advantage.

Prior written permission from the editorial office is required before involving a colleague, trainee, or co-reviewer, and every participant must be disclosed to the editor.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary materials, unpublished data, figures, tables, code, invitations, or other confidential information to publicly accessible generative AI tools. Such use may compromise confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property rights, and author control over unpublished work.

Reviewers must personally evaluate the manuscript and remain fully responsible for the accuracy, reasoning, originality, and integrity of their reports. AI must not generate the substantive scientific assessment, replace expert judgment, make publication recommendations, or create fabricated references or evidence.

Limited use of a secure tool approved in advance by the editorial office for language correction or accessibility may be permitted without uploading identifying or confidential content. Any authorized AI assistance must be disclosed to the editor.

Competing Interests of Reviewers

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest, including recent collaboration or co-authorship, employment at the same institution, supervisory, personal or financial relationships, professional disputes, direct academic competition, or involvement in the research.

If a conflict becomes apparent after acceptance, the reviewer must stop the evaluation and contact the editor immediately. The editor decides whether the reviewer may continue or must be replaced.

Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should confidentially notify the editor, with specific evidence where possible, of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulation of images, results or citations, unethical research, authorship irregularities, undisclosed competing interests, peer review manipulation, or substantial overlap with another work.

Reviewers must not independently investigate authors or contact third parties. The editorial office will handle the concern under journal policy and relevant COPE guidance.

Reviewer Identity and Peer Review Manipulation

Fraudulent reviewer identities, impersonation, fabricated email accounts, coordinated review rings, unauthorized delegation, and manipulation of recommendations are serious misconduct.

The journal may terminate the review, reject or reconsider the manuscript, remove a reviewer from its database, request evidence, notify an institution or competent authority, and correct or retract an article published through a compromised review process. All allegations are assessed fairly and confidentially before action is taken.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, publisher employees, or persons closely associated with the journal receive no preferential treatment. They are handled by an independent editor who has no relevant competing interest, was not involved in preparing the work, and independently selects the reviewers.

An editor who is an author must not access reviewer identities, confidential reports, or internal discussions beyond the information normally provided to authors.

Special Issues and Guest Editors

Articles in special issues, thematic collections, and guest-edited sections are subject to the same scientific, ethical, and peer review standards as regular submissions.

Guest editors must follow requirements on confidentiality, reviewer independence, competing interests, and editorial integrity. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility and may appoint an independent editor where necessary. A manuscript authored by a guest editor is handled by an independent editor.

Reviewer Diversity

The journal seeks to develop a broad and inclusive reviewer community. Where equally qualified candidates are available, editors consider diversity of disciplinary and methodological expertise, country representation, institutional affiliation, career stage, and gender. These considerations do not replace the requirements of relevant expertise, independence, professional conduct, and absence of competing interests.

Reviewer Recognition

The journal recognizes peer review as an important scholarly contribution. With the reviewer’s consent, the journal may provide a certificate or confirmation letter, acknowledge reviewers in a periodic list without identifying manuscripts, or confirm activity through an approved external service where technically available.

The connection between a reviewer and a specific manuscript will not be disclosed without written consent. Recognition does not affect confidentiality or independence.

Appeals Concerning Peer Review

Authors may appeal where they believe that a substantial factual, procedural, methodological, or ethical error occurred during review. The appeal must clearly identify the disputed issues, provide a reasoned response and supporting evidence, and avoid personal allegations.

An appeal is not a new round of peer review and is not accepted solely because an author disagrees with an academic judgment. Where possible, it is considered by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision. The journal’s final decision is normally conclusive.

External Standards

The journal’s peer review practices are informed by:

  • the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;

  • the COPE Core Practices;

  • the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;

  • the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement;

  • applicable national legislation and internationally recognized research integrity standards.

Policy Administration

This policy takes effect on the date of its publication on the journal’s official website and will be reviewed periodically to maintain alignment with applicable ethical standards and the journal’s editorial practices.

Questions, complaints, appeals, or allegations concerning peer review should be submitted to the Editorial Office of Geliotekhnika at ftikans@uzsci.net. All matters will be considered under the journal’s applicable policies and relevant COPE guidance.

ISSN 0130-0997 (Print)
ISSN 2181-9963 (Online)