The quality of papers published in the Metrology and Measurement Systems journal depends to a large extent on the quality of the peer review process that, being an integral part of the scientific publishing procedure, confirms the validity of accepted manuscripts. Our Reviewers are experts who volunteer their time and knowledge to support Authors in improving their manuscripts. This is an important and responsible activity in which they should be guided by the best intentions while taking into account a number of key aspects of evaluation. The Peer Reviewer is primarily responsible for critical reading of a manuscript and then providing substantive, constructive, and honest evaluative feedback to Editors and Authors about the reviewed submission. This evaluation should: (1) result from a balanced and impartial consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, (2) show ways to eliminate weaknesses and improve the quality and clarity of the work, and (3) assess the originality and potential of the described solution in relation to the state of the art and development trends. Developing a valuable review is then a non-trivial task and depends on meeting several basic conditions.

Therefore, before reviewing the manuscript, a Reviewer should consider at least the following three issues.

1) The Reviewer is asked to consider if the manuscript he/she is being asked to review matches their expertise. If a topic of the manuscript does not sufficiently match their area of expertise, they should promptly notify the editor and, if possible, recommend alternate reviewer(s).

2) The Reviewer should assess their ability to prepare the review in a timely manner. Typically, the review of a manuscript should be completed within three weeks. If, for any reason, this time frame may not be met, please let the editor know and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer(s).

3) The Reviewer should also consider any potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript. It is important to disclose all such conflicts to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

When reviewing a manuscript, the Reviewer is asked to express their opinion in four general parts of review concerning (1) Synthetic evaluation, (2) Confidential information for Editors, (3) Information for Authors, and (4) Reviewer decision. In the first part of review, i.e., Synthetic evaluation, the Reviewer answers briefly (YES/NO) to specific questions regarding the content of the manuscript, for example, whether the subject fits the profile and scope of the journal, whether the contribution is significant and original enough, or whether the title and abstract adequately reflect the content. A set of detailed questions appears at the beginning of paper evaluation in our Internet Editorial System.

In the second and third parts of review, i.e., Confidential information for Editors and Information for Authors, we expect all reviewer comments that, respectively, help Editors to make a decision on the manuscript and help Authors to improve their paper. Comments should be constructive and designed to enhance the manuscript. Reviewers are asked to make their comments as complete and detailed as possible and to express their opinions clearly using arguments and references if necessary. Specific comments that cite text lines, figure or table numbers are most helpful. When preparing comments, the Reviewer should take into account the following aspects:

1) The quality and originality of the manuscript content. The Reviewer should assess if the manuscript content is sufficiently novel and interesting for readers to justify publication. It should add an important contribution to the canon of knowledge while the paper itself should adhere to the journal’s standards. To determine content originality, the Reviewer might wish to do a quick literature search using scientific databases such as Web of Science or Scopus. If the research has been reported previously, provide the references of those works to the Editor.

2) The arrangement and clarity of the manuscript. The Reviewer should evaluate each part of the manuscript consecutively. When assessing the Introduction, they should determine whether the presented ideas and solutions are described accurately and whether the introduction clearly states the considered problem. The Introduction should summarize conducted research to provide context and explain how the current state of knowledge was developed or improved by the Authors. The next part of the manuscript should typically contain a description of the proposed solution, i.e., a Method and/or Technique, which is new or overcomes existing limitations. The Reviewer’s task is to assess whether the solution is really innovative and why it is better than existing ones. All general remarks, positive or negative, should be supported with concrete evidence.

Reviewers should also comment on any possible research or publication misconduct, such as if the manuscript reports data or conclusions already published (or in press), or if the Authors plagiarized another publication (someone else’s or their own). It is also important to evaluate if the solution is described sufficiently accurately and explained in detail. This part of the manuscript should allow the reader to replicate the research.

In the next part of the manuscript, regarding Tests and Results, a test setup, performed investigations, and obtained results should be described. This is also the place where the Authors explain what they discovered during their research. The Reviewer should consider if this section was clearly laid out and if the appropriate analysis was conducted. The manuscript should also make clear what type of data was recorded and with what precision it was measured/collected.

However, an interpretation of obtained results should be included in the next section, i.e., Conclusion or Summary. The Reviewer should consider if the claims in this section are supported by the achieved results and if they seem reasonable. The Authors should indicate how the results relate to assumptions or expectations, and to earlier research. The conclusion should also explain how the performed and described research has advanced scientific knowledge.

The last important part of the manuscript contains References. The Reviewer should assess if they are adequate, up-to-date, and belong, at least in part, to broadly understood metrology. Please, do not hesitate to suggest to the Authors references that are missing or seem necessary for the paper, especially from journals most important for the field of metrological methods and technology. The example journals are listed here (link).

3) Manuscript formatting assessment. The Reviewer is also responsible for evaluating if Figures and Tables included in all parts of the manuscript are appropriate. Specifically, whether they properly present the data and are easy to interpret and understand. The Reviewer should consider if the length of the manuscript is relative to the content and meets journal requirements. They should suggest, if needed, that certain portions of the manuscript be expanded, condensed, combined, modified, or deleted. The manuscript must comply with the Author guidelines. It is highly appreciated if the review of a manuscript, especially concerning articles not written by native speakers, contains comments leading to English-language improvement. If the reviewed manuscript is exceptionally good and makes a significant contribution to the existing literature, please do not hesitate to note it.

Please remember: The Reviewer should respect the confidentiality of the manuscript, and should not reveal unpublished manuscript content or use the obtained information in their own work. In addition, the content of their review and their recommendation should also be considered confidential. To remain anonymous, they should avoid comments to the Authors that could serve as hints revealing their identity.