1-The reviewer should decline the request unless he/she is fully confident of his/her expertise.
2-Should perform the review in full impartiality and confidentiality and without prejudice.
3-Should inform the area editor of any indications of conflict of interest or unethical conduct.
4-Should adopt a constructive approach and use a careful language not to offend the authors.
5-Should carefully observe the review time table specified.
Other Recommendations and Information:
6-Although the editorial board conducts a pre-screening, reviewers should check whether the subject matter is within the scope of the journal? If not, there is no need to provide a detailed review report. It is sufficient to mention in the review report that the manuscript is out of the scope of the Journal.
7-Although the editorial board conducts a pre-screening before assigning the papers to the reviewers, the reviewers should check whether the content has been published elsewhere wholly or partially before? We also provide similarity reports in the Review Platform (under “Files” tab) that can help reviewers.
8-The reviewer comments and recommendations should be specific and clearly understandable.
9-Basic criteria the reviewers should consider during their evaluation are:
a) Is the content of the manuscript original? Does the content present a specific and easily identifiable advancement in the state-of-knowledge?
b) Are the presented findings and the methodology generally valid, useful and applicable?
c) Does the title adequately describe the content?
d) Does the abstract adequately describe the content and main findings?
e) Does the paper follow a rational flow and order?
f) Are the illustrations of sufficient quality?
g) Are the illustrations original? If not, have they been properly referenced and have the necessary permissions been obtained?
h) Are the references complete and relevant?
i) Can the study be repeated by others? (i.e. is sufficient information presented on the followed methodology and used data?)
j) Are all figures and tables necessary? Is it possible to shorten the manuscript?
k) Are there repetitions in text, figures or tables?
l) Are the findings interpreted properly?
m) Are the evaluations/discussions properly related to the existing knowledge?
n) Are the conclusions sound and justified? (i.e. are the conclusions derived from data presented and discussed in detail in the body of the paper?)
10-The reviewers are anonymous to authors.