Review Guidelines

Peer reviewers are expected to provide constructive, critical, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers must have relevant expertise and allocate sufficient time to perform a thorough review. The following responsibilities apply:

PRINCIPLES FOT REVIEWER

  1. Field Relevance
    Ensure that the manuscript assigned for review falls within your area of expertise. If it does not, please inform the editorial team promptly.
  2. Timely Review
    Submit your review within the designated timeframe provided by the editorial board. If you require an extension, please communicate with the editor in advance.
  3. Conflict of Interest
    Avoid reviewing any manuscript in which you have a potential conflict of interest—financial, institutional, personal, or professional. If such a conflict exists, inform the Editor-in-Chief and recommend an alternative reviewer if possible.
  4. Impartial Evaluation
    Assess manuscripts objectively, without being influenced by the authors’ religion, race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or political views.
  5. Critical and Logical Feedback
    Reviews should be based on academic merit. Provide constructive comments and clear justifications for your recommendation (accept, revise, or reject).
  6. Confidentiality
    All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Do not share or discuss the content with anyone outside the editorial process.
  7. Respect for Intellectual Property
    Reviewers must respect the authors’ intellectual property and refrain from using any part of the data, analysis, or interpretations in the manuscript for personal benefit.


THINGS TO DO: REVIEWER

  1. All manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of the authors.
  2. Any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the editor.
  3. All information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential.
  4. Any information that may be the reason for a publication rejection must be communicated to the Editor.
  5. The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
  6. Submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
  7. Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations unless they have the authors’ permission.
  8. Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.
  9. Reviewers assigned to a manuscript will evaluate the following items:
    • The originality and importance of the study
    • The strengths and weaknesses of the data analysis
    • Writing, organization, and presentation
    • The degree to which the findings justify the conclusion
    • The validity of the manuscript's references and citations
    • The relevance, usefulness, and comprehensibility of the article for the journal's target audience