For Reviewers

Thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of peer-reviewed journals.

Reviewers must consider the followings:

  • Any selected reviewer 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 withdraw from the review process.
  • To inform editors when accepts or reject the review and introduce an alternative.
  • Any self, professional, religious, and racial opinion is prohibited.
  • Accurate review and declaration of the article’s strengths and weaknesses through a clear, educational, and constructive method.
  • Reviewers should identify cases where relevant published work referred to in the paper, has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether the respective source accompanies observations or arguments derived from other publications. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Not to rewrite or correct the article according to his/her interest.
  • Be sure of accurate citations. Also, reminding the cases which haven’t been cited in the related published researches.
  • Avoid expressing the information and details of articles.
  • Reviewers should not benefit new data or contents in favor of/against personal research, even criticism or discrediting the author(s). The reviewer is not permitted to reveal more details after a reviewed article being published.
  • Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  • Reviewers should not review 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.
  • Reviewer is prohibited from delivering an article to another one for reviewing except with the permission of editors. The reviewer and co-reviewer’s identification should be noted in each article’s documents.
  • Since the journal follows a quick review process and shows respect to the contributors’ eagerness, your timely submission of the report is highly appreciated.
  • The reviewer shouldn’t contact the author(s). Any contact with the authors should be made through the editors.
  • Once you have completed your evaluation of the article, the next step is to write up your report. The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive and should not include any personal remarks or personal details, including your name.
  • Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors can fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
  • When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article.
    • Reject (explain the reason in the report)
    • ¬†Accept without revision
    • Revise (either major or minor)
  • Clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article.
  • Please fill in all the sections of the Peer Review Report form and also explain the reason in support of your recommendation.
  • Please do not rename the .doc/.docx file you receive from us.