Reviewer Guidelines   

Confidentiality—Reviewers must consider all received manuscripts for review as confidential documents. Received manuscripts must not be seen by or discussed with others, except as authorized by the journal editors or authorized editorial staff.

Objectivity—Reviewers should conduct their reviews objectively. Criticism of the author’s personality or the topic is unprofessional and inappropriate. Reviewers should explain their recommendations clearly and explicitly and provide rational support and justification. Editors Recommendations could be one of the following:
• Accept the publication of the manuscript after compliance with the reviewers’ recommendations.
• Consider the publication of the manuscript after minor changes recommended by its reviewers.
• Consider the publication of the manuscript after major changes recommended by its reviewers.
• Reject the publication of the manuscript based on the reviewers’ recommendations

Fast-Track Reviews—Reviewers are requested to complete their reviews within a timeframe of 30 days. Reviewers also are free to decline reviews at their discretion. For instance, if the current work load and/or other commitments make it impossible for reviewers to complete fair reviews in a short timeframe (e.g., few days for fast-track review), reviewers should refuse such invitations for review and promptly inform the editor of the journal.

Qualifications—Reviewers who believe that they are not qualified to review a received manuscript should inform the journal editors promptly and decline the review process.

Disclosure—Information or ideas obtained through blind reviews must be kept confidential and must not be used by reviewers for personal benefits.

Conflict of Interest —Reviewers should refuse the review of manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest emerging from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts.

Substantial Similarity—Reviewers should inform editors about significant resemblances or overlap between received manuscripts and any other published manuscripts that reviewers are aware of.

Proper and Accurate Citation —Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Statements that include observation, derivation, or argument (currently or previously reported) should be accompanied by a relevant and accurate citation.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions—Reviewers assist editors in making editorial publication decisions, and also assist authors in improving their submitted manuscripts, through the editorial communications with authors. Therefore, reviewers should always provide explicit and constructive feedback to assist authors in improving their work.