Reviewers' Ethical Responsibilities

The double-blind review process adopted by INNER plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality of publications. This process ensures confidentiality and objectivity in the review process. Reviewers, under this system, do not communicate directly with the authors; instead, reviews and comments are conveyed through the journal's management system. Full evaluation forms and texts are sent to the authors by the editor. Therefore, reviewers assessing manuscripts submitted to INNER are expected to uphold the following ethical responsibilities:

• Reviewers must accept only those manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise.
• Reviews should be conducted in an unbiased, objective, and confidential manner.
• If reviewers perceive any conflict of interest with the authors of a manuscript, they should notify the editor at the earliest opportunity.
• Upon completing the review process, reviewers should dispose of the reviewed manuscripts in a manner that respects confidentiality.
• Reviewers may only use the published versions of the manuscripts they have reviewed.
• Reviews should be based solely on the content of the manuscript, ensuring that factors such as nationality, gender, religious and political beliefs, or economic interests do not influence the process.
• Reviews should be constructive, respectful, and avoid personal comments, including hostility, slander, or insults.
• Reviewers must ensure that they complete their review on time, adhering to the ethical guidelines outlined above.

Selection of Reviewers

Several factors influence the selection of reviewers for manuscripts submitted to INNER. These include the reviewer's experience and expertise, the relevance of their field of study, the collective experience of the editor and the reviewer in previous reviewing processes, among other criteria.

If authors request that their manuscript not be sent to specific reviewers due to potential conflicts of interest, the editor will honor this request and exclude those individuals from the review process. The list of reviewers is continuously updated and revised with last issue of published volume at the end of every year.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to respond to the editor's invitation to review within seven days, either accepting or declining the request. If they accept the invitation, reviewers should complete their review and upload the relevant files in the journal's management system within 20 days.
If a reviewer believes that a conflict of interest would prevent them from conducting an unbiased review, they must inform the editor and decline the review.
Reviewers should carefully read the invitation letter or email sent by the editor, as there may be special requests, such as reviewing only specific sections of the manuscript (e.g., the methods section).

If reviewers have received assistance from others during the review process, they should inform the editor and provide the names of those who helped. The editorial board of INNER considers it a publication ethics requirement to include such contributors in the list of reviewers.

Reporting of Reviews

Review reports should address the following issues:

• Does the manuscript contribute meaningfully to the field?
• Is the manuscript scientifically up to date?
• Review reports should be written critically and objectively.
• Reviewers should focus on the manuscript's content, avoiding any commentary on the author(s) themselves.
• In addition to completing the manuscript evaluation form, reviewers should provide detailed feedback, highlighting deficiencies, issues, and negative aspects with specific examples from the manuscript. 
• The editor and relevant field editor reserve the right to modify or intervene in reviewers' reports if they include typographical errors, inappropriate language, or offensive remarks toward the author(s).

Conflict of Interest

Due to potential conflicts of interest, authors may request that specific individuals not be assigned as reviewers. Examples of situations that may create a conflict of interest include:

• Previous collaborative publications with the author(s).
• Assistance provided by the reviewer in reading drafts of the manuscript.
• Prior interpersonal conflicts with the author(s).
• Financial interests related to the manuscript’s publication.
• Working in the same institution or department as the author(s).
  In such cases, the reviewer should inform the editor of any potential conflict to ensure an impartial review.

Publication Policy and Other Ethical Issues

Despite the editor's best efforts to identify ethical issues and potential breaches of INNER's publication policy, it is possible that some issues may go unnoticed. Reviewers are encouraged to inform the editor if they identify any ethical concerns.

Authors of manuscripts reporting research involving human participants, or data obtained directly or indirectly from humans, must provide ethical committee approval from their institution. The date and document number of the approval should be stated in the manuscript.
Authors must also affirm that they adhered to research ethics and publication standards.
When submitting manuscripts based on theses or dissertations, authors are expected to report the entire research, avoiding partial reporting of data.

Additionally, authors must disclose the contribution of each researcher and provide acknowledgments for funding sources and conflict-of-interest statements at the end of the manuscript.
After manuscript acceptance, all authors are required to complete and sign the "Copyright Transfer Form."

Providing Feedback for Reviewers

• The final version of accepted manuscripts will only be sent to those reviewers who previously expressed interest in seeing the manuscript again.
• Reviewers may notice that their feedback is not fully reflected in the manuscript upon its resubmission. This could be due to differing perspectives from other reviewers, which the editor may have incorporated. In such cases, reports from other reviewers may be provided.
  Based on the feedback from the reviewers, the editor may decide to:
  • Accept the manuscript for publication with minor or extensive revisions.

• Request another round of revisions based on the reviewers' feedback.
• Reject the manuscript.

Reviewers have the right to indicate in their reports whether they believe the manuscript should be accepted or rejected. Ultimately, the editor will make the final decision regarding publication based on the strength of the arguments and justifications provided by both the reviewers and authors.