General Guidelines for Reviewers

General Guidelines for Reviewers:

  1. Objective of the Review

The primary objective of the peer review process is to ensure that manuscripts published in our journal meet the highest standards of quality, originality, and scientific integrity. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merit, clarity, and relevance to the field.

  1. Confidentiality

All materials and communications related to the review process are confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with others, except with the journal's editorial staff. If you have any concerns about potential conflicts of interest, please inform the editor immediately.

  1. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might affect their objectivity. This includes, but is not limited to, personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or their institutions. If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewers must recuse themselves from the review process.

  1. Review Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following criteria:

  • Originality: Is the research novel and original? Does it contribute new knowledge to the field?
  • Significance: Is the research question important? Does the study address a significant problem or gap in the literature?
  • Methodology: Are the research methods appropriate and well-described? Are the results presented clearly and accurately?
  • Results: Are the results convincing and well-supported by the data? Are the statistical analyses appropriate?
  • Discussion: Is the interpretation of the results sound and well-reasoned? Does the discussion appropriately place the findings within the context of existing research?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript well-organized and written? Are the figures, tables, and references appropriately used and relevant?
  • Ethical Considerations: Are there any ethical concerns related to the research, such as issues with human or animal subjects?
  • Recommendations: Are the recommendations consistent with objectives and findings?
  • References: Are the references exhaustive and up-to-date?

 

  1. Review Process
  • Recommendations: Based on your evaluation, recommend one of the following:
    • Accept it as it  is
    • Minor revisions required
    • Major revisions required
    • Reject
  1. Feedback

Provide clear and specific feedback to the authors, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. Your comments should be constructive and aimed at helping the authors enhance their manuscript. Avoid personal criticism.

  1. Timeliness

Please complete your review within the timeframe agreed upon. If you are unable to meet the deadline, inform the editor as soon as possible to arrange an extension or to suggest an alternative reviewer.

  1. Ethical Conduct

Maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct in your review. Ensure that your review is impartial and unbiased, and avoid any actions that could be considered plagiarism or misconduct.