Promptness
In case, any reviewer feels that it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then the same must be communicated to the editor, so that the same could be sent to any other reviewer.
Confidentiality
Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers 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 had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
What reviewers are asked to do
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the articles for the following:
- Is there a clear objective for the article (e.g. a clear research question)?
- Does the author make suitable reference to other work in the same area of research?
- Is the methodology suitable to support the research?
- Is the reporting of findings clear and complete (so far as can be determined)?
- Do the tables and figures support the text?
- Do the discussion and conclusions accurately reflect on the findings?
- Is the title suitable for the article?
- Is there any suspicion of ethics violation?
Reviewers are asked to always be polite and constructive in their report, and never to be abusive or to make unjustified criticisms of the work.