Guidelines for the Reviewers

  1. Peer review is integral to editorial decisions and supports authors in enhancing their papers. It's a cornerstone of scholarly communication and the scientific method. Reviewers should treat authors and their work with respect and adhere to good reviewing practices. If a selected referee lacks the expertise or time for a timely review, they should inform the editor and decline participation.
  2. Do not use its contents for personal research advancement.
  3. Approach the review with a positive and impartial attitude, acting as an ally to the author, with the ultimate goal of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
  4. Complete your reviews timely (within 30 days from the receipt of the manuscript). If you anticipate a delay, please inform the editor.
  5. Do not engage in discussions with the paper's author(s). If you wish to consult a colleague or junior, consult with us first.
  6. Avoid making specific statements about the paper's acceptability in your comments to the author; instead, provide your recommendations to the editor.
  7. In your review, consider the following aspects as applicable:
  • Originality: Is the content novel?
  • Methodological soundness: Are the research methods (sampling, data, analytical tools, etc.) appropriate and well-executed?
  • Presentation of results: Are the results clearly presented, discussed and supportive of the conclusions? Is the paper well-organized and structured logically?
  • Proper referencing: Does the paper correctly reference relevant prior research?
  • Ethical compliance: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical guidelines and standards?
  • Suitability for the intended readership
  1. When providing comments for the author, maintain a dispassionate tone and avoid abrasive language. Suggested revisions should be clearly marked as such, rather than expressed as conditions for acceptance.
  2. Even if a paper is not accepted, constructive comments that can help the author improve are valuable. Please offer detailed feedback, including references when relevant, to aid both editors and authors.
  3. Document your criticism, arguments, and suggestions carefully to enhance their usefulness to the editor.
  4. The reviewer must understand that while reviewers' recommendations are appreciated, editorial decisions are often based on multiple sources of evaluation, and not all recommendations may be followed by the editor.