Reviewer Guidelines

  • Review manuscripts objectively, constructively, and in a timely manner (within the agreed deadline).
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of all materials and information related to the manuscript.
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, institutional) immediately to the editor.
  • Decline to review if you feel unqualified, have a conflict of interest, or cannot meet the deadline.
  • Provide clear, specific, and evidence-based comments to help improve the manuscript.
  • Avoid personal criticism or derogatory remarks — focus on the work, not the author.
  • Do not use unpublished information from the manuscript for your own research or personal advantage.

All reviewers are expected to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

  • Be alert to signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices — report them to the editor.
  • Do not copy, share, or repurpose any part of the manuscript without explicit permission.
  • Maintain impartiality — do not allow personal beliefs, nationality, institutional affiliation, or identity of authors to influence your review.
  • Notify the editor immediately if you suspect duplicate submission or prior publication.
Important: If you identify yourself or suspect the identity of the author(s) during double-blind review, please inform the editor and consider whether you can remain impartial.

When completing your review, please provide:

  • Comments for the authors (will be shared with authors)
  • Confidential comments for the editor (not shared with authors)
  • A clear recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
Accept: Manuscript is ready for publication with no or very minor changes.
Minor Revision: Small changes needed, no new experiments or major rewriting required.
Major Revision: Substantial changes, additional data/analysis, or rewriting needed.
Reject: Manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal (scientific flaws, out of scope, etc.).

  • Read the manuscript multiple times — first for overall impression, then for technical details.
  • Check the abstract, introduction, and conclusion first to understand the main claims.
  • Evaluate the methods and results carefully — are they reproducible and appropriate?
  • Assess statistical analysis (if applicable) and data presentation (tables, figures).
  • Verify references — are key works cited? Are citations accurate?
  • Comment on writing quality, clarity, organization, and adherence to journal guidelines.
  • Be specific — quote exact sentences or sections when suggesting improvements.
  • Number your comments for easy reference by authors and editors.
  • Be polite and professional even when criticizing — focus on helping improve the science.

Thank you for contributing your expertise to maintain the quality and integrity of our journal.