Peer Review Process
• Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others unless authorized by the publisher.
• Objectivity: Reviews must be carried out objectively. Critics must express their opinions clearly with adequate supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the authors will not be accepted.
• Identify relevants published works: The reviewrs must identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. They should also indicate whether the observations or arguments have been previously published. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work must be reported to the editor.
• Review of methods: They must examine the adequacy and precision of the methods used in the study, as well as the interpretation of the results.
• Structure and presentation of the manuscript: They must evaluate the structure of the manuscript, the clarity of expression, the integrity of the data and the presentation of information.
• Conflict of interest statement: If reviewers have any potential conflicting interests with the research, authors, or institutions connected to the manuscript, they must notify the editor and opt out of the review process for that manuscript.
• Review time: Reviewers must complete their review in the time allotted by the editor. If they cannot meet this deadline, they must notify the editor and decline the invitation to review.
• Constructive feedback: Although reviewers can recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript, the final decision rests with the editors. Reviewers should provide feedback that helps authors improve their work, with sufficient objectivity to allow authors to take action to improve points noted.
• Ethical evaluation: Reviewers must consider and comment on possible ethical problems in the research. If misconduct is suspected, reviewers should inform the editor.