- We ensure that the peer-review process is conducted in an impartial, timely, and equitable manner, utilizing a single-blind review method where the author remains unaware of the reviewer's identity, while the reviewer knows the author.
- We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all our reviewers for their continuous support, dedication, and effort in evaluating the submitted articles. The peer-review process transforms initial manuscript submissions into citable publications, thereby enhancing the quality of the work and its scientific significance for a broader audience.
- To identify suitable and active reviewers, we rely on author recommendations and bibliographic expertise.
- The evaluations and feedback provided by reviewers play a crucial role in the final decision-making regarding the manuscript, following consultations with the editors and considering various factors.
- The ultimate decision regarding the article is made after discussions with the editors, taking into account several criteria, including the research's relevance and impact. The assessments and suggestions from reviewers are vital in this process, and we adhere to the guidelines set forth by COPE. Should a reviewer identify a conflict of interest related to the manuscript, they have the option to refrain from providing comments.
- Reviewers are encouraged to communicate directly with the assigning editor. While feedback and critical evaluations regarding the manuscript's content should be directed to both the editor and the author, sensitive issues such as conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and previously published data should be reported solely to the assigning editor.
- Given that unpublished manuscripts are confidential, the evaluation and recommendation process is also kept private. Reviews must be objective and primarily focused on enhancing the scientific value of the manuscript.
- Personal attacks in review comments are strictly prohibited. Review feedback should be clear, well-supported by references, and should address the strengths, weaknesses, significance, and impact of the research work.
- Reviewers are encouraged to engage in communication with the assigning editor. While feedback and critical evaluations regarding the manuscript's content should be directed to both the editor and the author, any sensitive issues such as conflicts of interest, plagiarism, or previously published data must be reported solely to the assigning editor.
- Given that unpublished manuscripts are confidential, the evaluation and recommendation process must remain private. Reviews should be conducted with a high degree of objectivity, focusing primarily on enhancing the scientific quality of the manuscript.
- Personal attacks in review comments are strictly prohibited. Review feedback should be clear and supported by appropriate references. Reviewers should address the strengths and weaknesses of the research, its significance, impact, and the originality of the presentation.
- Finally, the review should include a discussion on the manuscript's suitability for publication. The editor may choose to share the review comments with additional potential reviewers, and reviewers must refrain from citing the unpublished manuscript.
A standard review process aims to ensure compliance with the following criteria:
- The title and content must be suitable for the journal's focus.
- The material presented should be relevant to the broad audience that the journal serves.
- All components of the manuscript, including the title, abstract, keywords, methodologies, and conclusions, should be consistent with the paper's objectives.
- The controls in the experimental work must be logical and adequate.
- The writing should be clear and free from ambiguities, facilitating easy comprehension.
- The methodology should be straightforward enough for other researchers to replicate.
- When applicable, necessary consent and ethical approvals must be secured for the research approach. The statistical and analytical methods employed should be appropriate and relevant to the study. The data must adequately support the conclusions and findings presented.
- There should be no redundancy in the text, tables, or figures. The data should be accurately represented by the sources, and the interpretations should be up-to-date, including all significant citable information.
- Comments regarding the manuscript's length may include suggestions for expanding, condensing, merging, or removing material as needed.
Reviewers role
- Peer review improves the manuscript's quality. By giving freely of their time, professional expertise, and interpretations, peer reviewers help publishers and authors improve the literature in their field.
- Analyze the article's scientific quality and promptly offer an objective evaluation of the text.
- Share their thoughts on the manuscript's significance, relevancy, clarity, and conciseness.
- Expected to offer insightful and helpful criticism of the manuscript. Provide suggestions for enhancing the scope, uniqueness, and presentation of the content.
- Making certain that the techniques are adequately detailed and that the study design is suitable
- Making certain that the text contains references to pertinent prior research Maintain punctuality, impartiality, integrity, and confidentiality when evaluating the manuscript. should refrain from making disparaging or personal remarks.
- Calculating the manuscript's grade and making recommendations about whether to accept or reject it, make significant or small changes, or terminate without making any recommendations
When a conflict of interest may arise, notification must be given and the review must be stopped.
