Reviewers provide independent scholarly advice to Qubahan Techno Journal (QTJ) and contribute to maintaining the academic quality and integrity of the journal.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, confidentially, and within their areas of expertise.

1. Scope and Relevance

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is relevant to one or more of QTJ's four principal subject areas:

• General Computer Science
• Mathematics (Miscellaneous)
• General Social Sciences
• Visual Arts and Performing Arts

2. Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should assess whether:

• the research problem is clearly defined;
• the scholarly gap is adequately established;
• the work provides an original or meaningful contribution; and
• the contribution is distinguishable from existing literature.

3. Literature and Theoretical Foundation

Reviewers should consider whether:

• relevant literature is adequately covered;
• prior work is represented accurately;
• appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundations are provided; and
• references are relevant and current where appropriate.

4. Methodology and Scholarly Approach

Depending on the field, reviewers should assess:

• computational methodology;
• mathematical reasoning or proof;
• experimental design;
• quantitative or qualitative methods;
• sampling and data sources;
• statistical analysis;
• artistic or practice-based methodology;
• theoretical analysis;
• validity and reliability;
• reproducibility; and
• ethical compliance.

5. Results and Findings

Reviewers should determine whether results or findings are clearly presented, appropriately analyzed, and adequately supported.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

Reviewers should assess whether:

• findings are interpreted appropriately;
• conclusions follow from the evidence;
• alternative explanations are considered;
• limitations are acknowledged; and
• claims do not exceed the evidence.

7. Research Integrity

Reviewers should confidentially notify the editor of suspected:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• fabrication or falsification;
• inappropriate manipulation of figures or data;
• fabricated references;
• citation manipulation;
• unethical research;
• authorship concerns; or
• undisclosed conflicts of interest.

8. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related information as confidential.

Unpublished information must not be used for personal, academic, competitive, or commercial advantage.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline assignments where financial, professional, academic, collaborative, institutional, competitive, or personal relationships could compromise impartiality.

10. Generative AI

Reviewers must comply with the QTJ Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to publicly accessible AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final publication decision rests with the responsible editor.