Instructions

Instructions  for Reviewers

  1. Starting the review

Only articles pass the plagiarism program by not more than 20% will be send for reviewing. All the following must be considered before deciding to accept the review invitation:

  • Only accept articles with your area of specialty.
  • According to COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, all potential conflict of interest should be revealed to editors.
  • You have extra time to spare, as reviewing might take a lot of work and meeting the deadline is crucial factor of commitment. The deadline to accept to take the review is 55 days, then you will have additional 14 day to complete the review.
  • If you need to find out more about reviewing of a specific article, please contact editors before accepting the review.
  • Accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible to avoid the delay in publishing process.
  • In case of decline, suggesting an alternative reviewer would be appreciated.
  1. Review managing Confidentiality

The peer review is a confidential process. All receiving documents should not be disclosed without prior permissions from editors and authors.

General instructions

Writing the review is expected to be after thorough reading of the article and spotting the major issues. Focusing on the following points will help in your fast decision:

Experimental work

Weakness and flaws can be reflected from the following:

  • Illogical method without an appropriate reference
  • Doubted experiments
  • Missing an important step of the methodology
  • Improper statistical analysis

Results and discussions

First thing to check that all tables and figures are clearly cited in the text and represent logical presentation of the research data. Weakness in result part can be spotted by insufficient data points, insignificants differences, un related or unconvict justification.

Ethical considerations

All experiments involving human or animal subjects should be clearly documented according to the journal policy.

  1. Review structure

The reviewers’ point of views and comments are valuable to the authors and the editors. Theses remarks would help the authors to correct and improve their article and help in the editor decision of accepting publication. The comments should be of scientific criticism, constructive, free from personnel information. Final decision need to be justified based on the reviewer opinion or reflected by the data and evidence.