Reviewer Guidelines

The manuscript is assigned to an editor, who in turn chooses 2 editorial board members or reviewers to review it. The reviewer should determine the research work whether the subject is within the scope of the journal and within the expertise or not within 1 week after the e-mail invitation, the reviewer should make his/her decision by clicking on the pending assessment's title on the screen. After 1 week, the preferences of the reviewer may not be considered by the editors. Reviewers can intimate their acceptance/rejection of the invitation. Assigned Reviewers have 4 weeks to submit their objective, independent, and scientific review. After 4 weeks, the suggestions of the reviewer may not be considered by the editors.

Remarks are to be done confidentially and can advise/suggest for acceptance, rejection, or modification of the manuscript to the editor. These suggestions should be included in scientific explanations. The reviewer should contact the editor if there is any conflict of time & interest, and based upon that the respective reviewer can either extend or decline to review the assignment. Reviewers are an obligation to make an explanation regarding any possible conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, counseling, or other). If there are not any conflicts of interest in a study, it is obliged to be declared. We hereby request the reviewers not share any information regarding the manuscript for their purpose. Offensive remarks are strictly not acceptable and criticism should be presented dispassionately. In case of unsuitable reviewer statements, the editor(s) can make changes to the reviewer's comments. The final decision regarding the acceptance, rejection, or modification entirely depends on the editor.