Guidelines for Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review helps the editor regarding editorial decisions and by way of the editorial communications with the writer may also abet the author in ameliorating the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels inexperienced to review a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible must inform the editor and excuse himself from the review-process.

Confidentiality

Any article received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be made objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and cannot be supported at any cost. Referees should express their viewpoints evidently and distinctly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should highlight the pertinent published work that has not been cited by the authors. Citation of the resources must be mentioned. A reviewer must also call to the editors’ attention any considerable similarity or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published manuscript of which they have personal know-how.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Confidential information or ideas acquired through peer-review should be kept secret and not used for personal primacy. Reviewers should not review articles in which they have conflicts of interest emerging from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, or institutions linked to the papers.