This journal has adopted a double-blind reviewing policy, where both the author and reviewer remain anonymous throughout the process. The journal will ensure that timely decision regarding accepting or declining manuscripts are taken. Those manuscripts which don’t fall within the aim and scope of the journal and don’t meet the editorial standards will not go to the review process.

 

Responsibilities of a Reviewer

Reviewers play a critical role in upholding the scholarly record's integrity by adhering to the following standards:

• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential competing interests, whether personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious. Reviewers should decline to review if such conflicts exist.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should respond to review invitations promptly and only accept if they can complete the review within the proposed timeframe. If their circumstances change, they must inform the journal promptly and suggest alternative reviewers if possible.
• Conducting a Review: Reviewers should thoroughly read the manuscript, supplementary data and reviewer instructions, respecting the confidentiality of the review process.
• Ethics Violations: If reviewers suspect any ethical issues, such as research misconduct or plagiarism, they should contact the journal editor immediately and refrain from investigating personally.
• Transferability of Peer Review: Reviewers may be asked to transfer their reviews to other journals within a publisher’s portfolio. If they agree, they should provide their original review, noting any changes and differences in evaluation criteria.

Preparing a Review Report

Reviewers should follow the journal’s instructions for writing and submitting reviews. Reports should be objective, constructive, and specific, providing feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts. Read the manuscript and any supplementary data files thoroughly. Get clarity from the editor on items which are imprecise during the review. Treat all elements of the review process as confidential, don’t use any material or involve anyone not part of the review process without approval from the Editor. Report any suspicions of violations of publication ethics to the editor promptly. Reviewers must avoid hostile, inflammatory, or defamatory comments and ensure their recommendations to accept, revise, or reject align with their comments.

Reviewers should respect the authors’ style, suggesting changes only to improve clarity. They should distinguish between essential additional analyses and those that merely extend the work. Accountability is key; reviews should be conducted independently unless permission is granted to involve others. Reviewers must avoid unnecessarily delaying the review process or suggesting citations to boost their own citation counts.

Responsibilities of the Author

Reviewers play a critical role in upholding the scholarly record's integrity by adhering to the following standards:

• Conflicts of Interest: Authors must declare any potential competing interests, whether personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious..
• Timeliness: Authors should respond to review corrections promptly and complete the review corrections within the proposed timeframe. If their circumstances change, they must notify the editor.

 

Post-Review Considerations

Reviewers should be willing to review revised or resubmitted manuscripts and respond promptly to journal inquiries. They should notify the journal if any new information arises that may affect their original review. Reviewers must continue to respect the confidentiality of the review process even after it is completed.