Reviewers' Guidelines

Reviewers are responsible for objectivity, professionalism, impartiality, and confidentiality in assessing content quality.

The Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process. Where the identities of authors and reviewers are hidden from each other, its purpose is to improve the quality of content and of the scientific material under review that is ultimately published. Conscientious review is a time-consuming effort but essential to ensure scientific journals' quality. The Journal is very grateful for the time and effort reviewers invest in this process. The Journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and strives to ensure that the review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Decisions to accept a manuscript for publication depend on the importance of the investigated issue, originality, clarity, validity, and relevance of the work to the scope of the Journal. Therefore, reviewers have a significant decision on whether to accept an article for publication.

General Notes

• Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. If the research reported in the manuscript is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Personal criticism will likely lead an author to ignore helpful comments, making your review less helpful to your field. Criticisms should be objective, not merely differences of opinion, and intended to help the author improve their paper;
• It would help if you declined to review manuscripts in which you have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers;
• If your previous or present connection with the author(s) or an author's institution might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists, please include this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, please get in touch with the Editor who requested the review before accepting;
• Respect the confidentiality of the manuscript, which is confidently sent to you. It would help if you did not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in your work. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission from the editor. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered confidential and
• If you remain anonymous, ensure that you avoid comments to the authors that might serve as clues to your identity.