1- Reviewers should be experts with publications and citations on the subject of the article.

2- They should not cause a delay that will delay the publication date of the journal and/or cause the study to lose its current status. If they cannot evaluate the article, they should notify the journal editor of this situation at the consultancy invitation stage and return the task.

3- If they have information about the people and centers that conducted the study and therefore cannot make the evaluation impartially, they should inform the journal.

4- They should read the article from beginning to end at least once during the evaluation stage and conduct a literature review to benefit from additional sources if needed.

5- If they detect a problem with the statistical data of the article, they should notify the journal and suggest that the necessary statistical control and arrangement be made.

6- They should analyze the planning, methods, results and other scientific content of the study, and in addition, they should inform the journal of their comments on whether there are any requirements regarding patient consents, conflicts of interest, financial support and ethics committee approvals.
7- The evaluation should be made using the form sent by the journal, but must also include a comment containing their views on the study. 8- As a requirement of their responsibility to be educational and instructive, advisors should guide the authors and avoid offensive and dishonorable comments.