Reviewer Guidelines
1. Role of Reviewers
Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Their assessments help editors make informed decisions and help authors improve their work.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
This journal follows a double-blind review process:
- Reviewers should not attempt to discover the identity of the authors.
- They must keep all manuscripts and review materials confidential.
3. Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any information from the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editor.
4. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear and constructive comments. Criticism should be respectful and focused on improving the manuscript, not the author.
5. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest—personal, professional, or financial—that could affect their objectivity. If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation.
6. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on:
- Originality and significance of the research
- Clarity of objectives and methodology
- Validity of data and results
- Quality of writing and organization
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
7. Timeliness
Reviewers should complete their reviews within the timeframe specified in the invitation. If more time is needed, please notify the editor as soon as possible.
8. Anonymity and Ethical Conduct
Do not use unpublished materials from a manuscript in your own research. Maintain professional ethics throughout the review process.
9. Recommendation Options
Reviewers typically recommend one of the following:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Your detailed comments and justification will assist the editorial decision and help authors improve their work.