A mandatory requirement for the reviewer is his/her professional level and ability to ensure a high level of design of the results of quality research in compliance with international standards of publishing ethics and academic integrity.
The ethical principles of peer-reviewing procedure do not allow reviewers to conduct a peer review unless they are experienced experts in the specific subject of the manuscript. If the reviewer considers itself as inexperienced with the manuscript subject, the reviewer should notify the editor-in-chief about it as soon as possible.
In the case of receiving a manuscript based on the double-blind peer review model, the reviewer is deprived of the opportunity to identify the author and do a biased review. If the author’s identity becomes known to the reviewer (because of a narrow subject of the manuscript, etc.), the reviewer must notify the editor-in-chief about a potential violation of the blind peer-review procedure and potential conflict of interest.
A double-blind peer review involves two independent reviewers for evaluating a manuscript. Attempts to investigate the identity of the second reviewer aimed to discuss the results of the review are inadmissible for the reviewer. The results obtained from the review should be independent. In case of gradual difference in the assessment of the content of the manuscript by the reviewers, the editors have the right to involve a third reviewer to determine the possibility of publishing the manuscript.
The reviewers should inform editors about any facts identified during the reviewing process that may interfere with the objective and rigorous review of the manuscript.
The reviewers must adhere to the deadline set by the journal for reviewing the authors (ten weeks). Unless it is possible to conduct a review within the specified period, the reviewer has to inform the editors about it as soon as possible. Editors are allowed to replace the reviewer or agree with the authors another review period (as an exception).
The reviewers have to keep the confidentiality of the manuscript reviewing process.
The review provided to the authors based on the results of the manuscript. The review should be objective, appropriately structured, written in an academic style, devoid of evaluative judgments about the authors and the content of the manuscript. The review, if possible, should be designed as a recommendation with references to alternative points of view, methodological remarks, etc.
The reviewers have to pay attention not only to the validity of the theoretical provisions of the manuscript but also to the verification of empirical data to prevent the falsification and manipulation. The reviewers have the right to request additional clarifications on the data used by the authors.
The subject of the review is in compliance with the requirements for the design of the paper, the logic of its structure; correspondence of the content of the manuscript to the stated title, the content of the annotation, keywords; academic style and quality of English, quality of the sources, etc.
Editors pre-check the manuscripts submitted for review for text matching using the UNICHECK system. The reviewers are committed to maximizing the detection of academic integrity violations when reviewing a manuscript (improper handling of citations and a list of sources used, excessive self-citation and unjustified citation of sources, authorship integrity, etc.)
If the reviewer believes that the manuscript has deliberate deficiencies or indicates a low level of the academic culture of the authors, he has to inform the editors about the rejection of the manuscript without detailed consideration.
The reviewers have to inform the editors if they have reason to believe that the manuscript has been published in another publication or is pending there.
Reviewing has to be conducted without any form of discrimination against authors or manuscripts’ titles. The reviewers are to define the manuscripts that contain elements of discrimination, the propaganda of violence, aimed at speculative criticism of other authors, etc.
The reviewers are strictly prohibited from using the manuscript materials for their own research or other purposes.
The journal’s reviewers are recognized experts in the journal’s academic fields (space law (public international space law, private and public international law); ownership in outer space, its identification, legalization and protection; philosophy of cosmos; sociology of the right of space exploration; psychology of the right of space research and space exploration; theological right according to space research and space exploration; space legislation; legal safeguards in outer space; link between space law and space technology; legal regulation of cosmic companies; legal and illegal international and national coercion in outer space). The information about their participation in the editorial board of the journal is public. Reviewers do not have the right to review manuscripts submitted directly to them or to provide private, in-depth recommendations or advice to the authors of specific manuscripts.
The reviewer has the right to provide recommendations for shortening the text of the manuscript, which contains well-known facts, prevents relevant perception of a possible article by the readers.
The reviewer has the right to recommend the authors to include certain sources. The reviewer undertakes to adhere to the principles of academic integrity and should refrain from including in the context of the manuscript his publications, journal articles and other journals published by the International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) (except some cases, which are agreed with the editors).
If the review process reveals cases that go beyond these recommendations for reviewers in the field of publishing ethics, as well as beyond the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the reviewer has no right to resolve these cases without informing the journal editors.