Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering

SJCE Reviewer Duties and Ethical Rules

1) Role and contribution to editorial decisions

Reviewers support the editors in reaching informed decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection, thereby upholding the Journal’s quality standards and the advancement of science. They should help identify relevant prior work that has not been properly acknowledged or cited and flag any substantial similarity or overlap with existing publications.

2) Scope of expertise and timeliness

Reviewers should accept only those manuscripts that fall within their primary areas of expertise. If they are unqualified or unable to deliver a review within the requested timeframe, they must decline promptly or withdraw so the editor can find an alternative reviewer.

3) Objectivity, fairness, and tone

Assessments must focus on the scientific content, not on the authors. Personal criticism is unethical and unacceptable. Reviews should be constructive, evidence-based, and clearly reasoned, with specific guidance that helps authors improve their work.

4) Literature vigilance and similarity checks

Reviewers should check the manuscript (and any available similarity report) for unacknowledged prior work, missing citations, and overlap with existing publications, and promptly alert the editor to any substantial similarities detected.

5) Confidential handling of materials

Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose information about a submission with others without explicit editor approval.

6) Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must decline assignments if any potential conflicts (personal, professional, institutional, or financial) exist with the authors, their institutions, or related companies. Acceptance of a review constitutes a declaration that no conflicts of interest exists.

7) Use of unpublished information

Information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer’s own research or any other purpose and may not be shared without the editor’s permission.

AI Use in Peer Review — Guidance for Reviewers

Reviews have to remain human-led. AI tools can assist reviews with limited, non-confidential tasks. However, peer review should remain confidential, independent, and grounded in the reviewer’s own expertise and judgment. The use of AI, if used at all, should be limited to minor, non-confidential support with careful verification and clear accountability.

Good practice and transparency of AI use in review

• Reviews primarily reflect the reviewer’s own reading and professional judgment; any AI output need to be treated as unverified draft material.
• Factual statements and citations in the review need to be cross-checked by the reviewer.
• If AI provided material assistance beyond minimal grammar polishing, reviewers should include a brief, private note to the editor (e.g., “An institutionally approved AI tool was used to refine wording; no manuscript content was shared externally.”).

1. AI uses in reviews that should be avoided:

• Reviewers should not share any part of a submission (text, figures, tables, identities, or editorial correspondence) with public or non-approved AI systems.
• Reviewers should not rely on AI to form the evaluative substance of a review report (e.g., assessments of novelty, validity, importance, or the final recommendation).
• Reviewers should not count on AI-generated summaries, “similarity/novelty” claims, or references without personal verification.

2. AI uses that may be appropriate with care:

• When reviewer’s institution provides an AI system under an approved confidentiality framework, reviewers may use it for limited assistance provided the manuscript content does not leave the secure environment.
• Reviewers may use AI-assisted grammar or style tools to polish their own review text, provided no confidential manuscript content is shared.
• Reviewers may use search/AI tools to locate public sources without disclosing manuscript details, but should verify each source before relying on it.