Peer review is fundamental to the editorial process at RETA, offering valuable guidance for enhancing publication quality. We expect reviewers to act with scientific rigor, focusing both on identifying shortcomings in manuscripts and offering constructive suggestions. For more information regarding the journal's ethical guidelines, click here.

To this end, the journal encourages replacing brief or overly critical assessments with comprehensive review reports that:

• Summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript at the outset;

• Evaluate originality, relevance, and contribution to the existing body of knowledge;

• Examine the theoretical framework, ensuring the inclusion of essential references and suggesting additional readings if necessary;

• Thoroughly analyze the methodology for appropriateness and precision, including the coding process for qualitative studies and statistical rigor for quantitative analyses;

• Verify whether the discussion's claims are reasonable and properly supported by the results;

• Consider the theoretical contribution of the manuscript and its potential social impact;

• Assess the quality of the writing;

• List minor points for improvement, if any.

Reviewers assigned to evaluate manuscripts must be free of conflicts of interest related to the research or its funders. Furthermore, they should avoid personal bias, maintaining an ethical and respectful conduct in presenting their arguments and recommendations. Additionally, reviewers are advised to accept for review only those manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise, ensuring the delivery of a consistent and qualified review report.

Reviewer comments should be clearly and objectively reasoned, allowing authors to use the feedback to improve their work. It is also the reviewers' responsibility to advise the editor-in-chief/co-editor and associate editor regarding the acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscripts. If a reviewer feels they lack the necessary technical expertise to conduct the evaluation or do not have enough time to complete the review within the requested timeframe, they should immediately inform the editorial management team and excuse themselves from the process.

Any reviewer who considers that they do not possess adequate knowledge to evaluate a submitted manuscript, or who lacks the availability to complete the review promptly, should inform the journal and withdraw from the review process.

RETA adopts a double-blind peer review system. Therefore, submitted manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential documents and cannot be shared or discussed with third parties. Any information or ideas obtained through the review process must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers must also decline to evaluate manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the work.

RETA prohibits reviewers from using AI tools in preparing peer review reports. Peer review requires independent expert judgment and compliance with confidentiality obligations; the unauthorized use of AI constitutes a violation of confidentiality and ethical standards, in accordance with guidelines from COPE and Scopus.

Regarding scientific integrity, reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited, bearing in mind that any statement that an observation, source, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Likewise, reviewers must alert the editor-in-chief/co-editor and associate editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge, in order to prevent plagiarism. Independent of this screening, the RETA team will submit texts to similarity detection software using the Crossref Similarity Check tool.

Finally, reviewers are expected to be fully aware of the journal's ethical guidelines, ensuring that their conduct and the evaluated manuscript strictly comply with the journal's submission standards.