Guidelines for Reviewers
Read the article and the supplementary information related to documenting references, and quality
standards. You may refer to the section editor for more details regarding the review process.
Respect the confidentiality of the review process and avoid using review information in a way that harms the reputation of the journal or the author.
Do not involve others in the review process, except for training a novice reviewer, provided that the main,reviewer supervises the review process and informs the journal.
Avoid bias and maintain objectivity during the review process, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity,
religious beliefs, or political views, unless the content harms the culture of the local community.
Avoid writing negative comments or including subjective criticisms.
Avoid suggesting citing your own reference or that of a colleague with the intention of increasing citations, unless it is based on academic and scientific reasons that add to the research.
Do not agree to review the research just to read it, without the intention of providing a review.
Do not agree to review research similar to a work currently in preparation.
Do not delay the review process or request additional information about the author that is not important.
The section editor is allowed to conduct a review of the research if the reviewers are unable to submit a review report, with a clear explanation, without resorting to an unknown reviewer.
If you suspect research misconduct (plagiarism, similarity between articles, etc.) or a conflict of interest, inform the journal's ethics committee chair.
You can transfer your review between journals under what is known as a portable peer review, after
informing the original journal.
Always be prepared to review a paper that has been rejected, as the author may have improved their
research, and evaluation criteria vary from one journal to another.
