Reviewer Guidelines

Responsibility

Peer reviewers are expected to thoroughly read and assess articles in their area of expertise before giving authors courteous, helpful, and truthful feedback regarding their submissions. The purpose of the meeting is for the peer reviewer to discuss the article’s merits and faults, brainstorm methods to enhance the work’s depth and quality, and evaluate the manuscript’s originality and relevance.

Things you need to do before reviewing

The article you want to be examined has to be within your area of expertise. Please let the editor know as soon as possible if it doesn’t match, and if at all possible, recommend a different reviewer.

You will have two weeks to finish writing the article review. In the event that you expect a timeframe beyond two weeks, please tell the editor.

Make sure to address any potential conflicts of interest with the editors if you have any concerns about them. If you need any more information on any conflicts of interest or have any issues, please contact the editorial office.

The confidentiality of any articles submitted for evaluation is the highest priority.

At Review

Please keep the following considerations in mind while you read the article.

In order to notify it for publishing, verify its significance, and ensure that the research community gains new information, does the paper offer original and engaging content? Before proceeding with the study, be sure the article’s question is relevant.

Checking for originality and journal suitability is important.

Whether or if the article gives enough information. If not, could you please clarify what details are required?

Please point out the errors and provide solutions in the article. It is recommended that you remove or provide a suitable solution to any problematic areas in the article. Recommend include important points in the updated article. In addition, the article might be strengthened by implementing those ideas.

Guidelines for Written Comments

Please provide thorough feedback about the findings of your review. In order to help the author enhance the paper even better, the journal will sent your feedback to them. Kindly refrain from making personal or negative comments. Comment honestly and constructively. Prioritize providing constructive criticism that will allow the author to enhance the piece. Please make note of the remark area and pass it on to the author and editor individually.

Recommendations

Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Decline Submission