Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewers Guidelines

These guidelines outline reviewers' critical responsibilities and ethical obligations in the academic publishing process. These guidelines include enhancing editorial decisions, timeliness, confidentiality, objectivity, recognition of sources, and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: The peer review process significantly aids the editor in reaching editorial decisions and, via editorial communications, can help the author to enhance their paper. Serving as the cornerstone of scholarly communication and the scientific method, peer review is an indispensable facet of academic research.

Timeliness: If a chosen referee feels inadequate to review the research presented in a manuscript or acknowledges that they cannot provide a timely review, they should inform the editor and recuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated with strict confidentiality. These documents should only be shown or discussed with others if explicitly authorized by the editor.

Objectivity and Professionalism: Reviews should be executed objectively, with personal criticism of the author being wholly inappropriate. Referees should articulate their opinions lucidly and substantiate them with convincing arguments.

Recognition of Sources: Reviewers should highlight relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any assertion that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be paired with the appropriate citation. Furthermore, reviewers should alert the editor to any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and any other published work they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be utilized in a reviewer's own research unless the author's express written consent has been obtained.