For Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

The journal is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process in accordance with international best practices. Reviewers are expected to adhere to ethical principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and guidance on peer review responsibilities provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Peer review plays a central role in ensuring the scientific quality, validity, and integrity of published research. Reviewers are therefore expected to conduct evaluations objectively, constructively, and in a timely manner.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as strictly confidential. Submitted manuscripts must not be shared, distributed, or discussed with any third party without prior authorization from the editorial office.

Unpublished material contained in submitted manuscripts must not be used in any form for personal research advantage. Reviewers must not appropriate ideas, data, or interpretations obtained through the review process prior to publication.

Manuscripts and related files must not be retained, copied, or stored after the review has been completed. All materials should be securely deleted or disposed of in accordance with confidentiality requirements.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their impartiality. These may include personal, financial, academic, professional, or institutional relationships with the authors or related parties. Where such conflicts exist, reviewers are expected to decline the invitation to review.

The peer review process is strictly personal. Reviewers must not delegate the review to another individual without explicit prior approval from the editorial office. If assistance is required, this must be communicated transparently to the journal.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. Criticism should be professional, clear, and free from personal or derogatory remarks.

Reviewer Eligibility Criteria

To ensure the integrity and quality of the peer review process, reviewers are expected to meet the following general criteria:

Reviewers must have relevant subject-matter expertise demonstrated through a track record of research publications in the field.

Reviewers should hold a doctoral degree or equivalent professional research qualification, unless otherwise justified by exceptional expertise in a specific area.

Reviewers must be independent of the authors, with no current or recent affiliation with the same institution.

Reviewers must not have co-authored publications with any of the manuscript’s authors within the past three years, and must not have an ongoing collaboration that could compromise impartiality.

Reviewers should not have any personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors that could influence their judgment.

Reviewers are expected to be active researchers affiliated with recognized academic or research institutions.

Peer Review Model

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system. Under this model:

The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.

This system is intended to minimize bias and ensure an impartial evaluation based solely on the scientific merit of the work.

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts assigned for review are evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and suitability for the manuscript topic.

Reviewers are typically requested to complete their evaluation within a defined timeframe indicated in the invitation letter. Extensions may be granted upon request when necessary.

The editorial team oversees the review process to ensure timely handling, consistency, and adherence to ethical standards. Reviewer reports are carefully assessed by the handling editor before any editorial decision is made.

For detailed information regarding workflow, editorial decision-making, and review timelines, reviewers are encouraged to consult the journal’s official peer review policy.