Guidelines for Reviewers
| 1. Duties of reviewers |
| 2. Guidelines for manuscript review |
| 3. Guidelines for submitting the review |
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review acts as a crucial guide for the editor, informing their publication decisions. Beyond this gatekeeping role, it also offers authors valuable feedback through editorial communication, helping them strengthen their work. This integral practice forms the bedrock of formal scholarly communication, upholding the core principles of the scientific method. While specific ethical guidelines are outlined below, reviewers are urged to treat authors and their research with the utmost respect, akin to how they would wish to be treated themselves. Moreover, good reviewing etiquette should be consistently observed.
If any selected referee feels unqualified to assess the submitted research or anticipates delays in providing a prompt review, they should promptly notify the editor and recuse themselves from the process.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts entrusted for review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must refrain from sharing the manuscript itself, any details about its content, or contacting the authors directly without prior editorial approval. Information disclosed within unpublished manuscripts, be it data, ideas, or methods, remains strictly confidential and must not be used in the reviewer's own research without the author's explicit written consent. Any privileged knowledge or insights gained through peer review are entrusted to the reviewer and must not be exploited for personal gain.
Alertness to ethical issues
Reviewers should be vigilant for potential ethical concerns within the paper. This includes identifying any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any published work known to the reviewer. Moreover, any instances where the paper claims prior reporting of observations, derivations, or arguments should be accompanied by accurate and relevant citations. It is the reviewer's responsibility to bring such ethical issues to the editor's attention promptly and transparently.
Standards of objectivity
Objectivity is paramount in peer review. Reviewers must be mindful of any potential personal biases and ensure they don't influence their assessment of the manuscript. Personal attacks or criticisms of the author are unacceptable. Instead, reviewers should focus on clearly articulating their feedback, supported by concrete arguments and evidence. This ensures a fair and constructive review process that benefits both the author and the scientific community.
Competing interests
Reviewers who have potential conflicts of interest due to professional, collaborative, or personal connections with the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated with the paper under review should consult the editor before agreeing to participate. This includes situations where the reviewer holds competitive interests or potential collaborations. In the event a reviewer recommends citing their own work (or that of their associates) to the author, such suggestions must be solely based on genuine scientific merit and not motivated by personal gain, such as inflating citation counts or boosting the visibility of their research. Transparency and objectivity are paramount throughout the review process.
2. Guidelines for manuscript review 
Reviewer Guidelines
Review reports
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:
- Originality
- Contribution to the field
- Technical quality
- Clarity of presentation
- Depth of research
Reviewers should also:
- Observe that the author(s) have followed the instructions for authors, editorial policies and publication ethics.
- Observe that the appropriate journal’s reporting guidelines are followed.
The report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should avoid using “hostile, derogatory and accusatory comments”.
*Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.
Timeliness
Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.
Recommendation
Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:
- Accept
- Requires minor corrections
- Requires major revision
- Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal):
- Reject
*Recommendations should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.
3. Guidelines for submitting the review
1. Log in the Journal website -> click on username -> Dashboard -> Submission -> My Assigned.
2. Selecting the review link will take you to the first review step. Scroll down, click “Accept Review, Continue to Step #2” to accept the review request, then you can find the guidelines for reviewers.
*Note: You can decline the review invitation by clicking “Decline Review Request”, and it would be very helpful if you could suggest alternative referees.
3. Click “Continue to Step #3, you can download the submission file, assess the manuscript, and enter comments for Authors and Editors.
4. Scroll down the page to optionally upload a marked-up copy of the review file.
5. Select a recommendation, then hit Submit Review/Ok to complete the task.