Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Outcomes of the review
The outcomes of the review will be the basis for the Editor-in-Chief to conclude
1. Revisions Required
2. Accept Submission
3. Decline Submission
An article will be rejected for publication due to various considerations: (1) if the article does not fit the scope, (2) if the article does not follow the rules of writing scientific papers / do not follow the guidelines authors, (3) if there are fundamental methodological errors, (4), if the author refuses to make suggestions of improvements provided by the reviewer without a logical basis, and (5) if there are indications of plagiarism of more than 20%