Reviewer Guidelines

1. Introduction

As a reviewer, your contribution is vital in maintaining the quality and integrity of this journal. Peer review ensures that only high-quality, well-researched, and ethically sound papers are published.

2. Responsibilities of a Reviewer

Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript.
Provide a fair, unbiased, and timely review.
Evaluate the manuscript’s scientific and technical merit.
Give constructive feedback to help authors improve the paper.
Declare conflicts of interest, if any.

3. Timeline for Review

Acknowledge the invitation to review within 3 days.
Submit the review report within 2–3 weeks of acceptance.
Request extension if needed, or inform the editor if you are unavailable.

4. Key Aspects to Evaluate

Originality: Is the work novel and significant in the field?
Technical Soundness: Are the methods and analysis appropriate and rigorous?
Clarity: Is the writing clear, organized, and grammatically correct?
References: Are the citations relevant and sufficient?
Figures & Tables: Are visuals relevant, accurate, and well-explained?
Ethics & Integrity: Are there any signs of plagiarism or unethical conduct?

5. Review Report Format

Confidential comments to the editor
Comments to the author (constructive, specific, and respectful)
Recommendation:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must avoid reviewing manuscripts from close collaborators.
Do not use unpublished data for personal research.
Do not breach confidentiality.

7. Reviewer Ethics

Do not attempt to contact authors directly.
Provide evidence and reasoning for critiques.
Avoid personal criticism.

8. Reviewer Recognition

A certificate of appreciation will be provided.
Reviewer's name may be published annually (with consent).
High-performing reviewers may be considered for editorial board roles.

9. Communication

If in doubt or if you suspect plagiarism or ethical concerns, contact the editorial office immediately.