Peer Review Policy

This journal employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring impartial assessment by both authors and reviewers. Employing a double-blind review process, this journal initially evaluates all submissions for journal appropriateness. Selected papers are subsequently dispatched to a minimum of two impartial expert reviewers to evaluate scientific excellence. The ultimate determination of article acceptance or rejection lies within the purview of the Editor, whose decision is absolute and final.

 

Instructions for Reviewers

According to ICMJE Peer Reviewers Guidelines under responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process;

Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details.

Reviewers therefore should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.

Reviewers who seek assistance from a trainee or colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals’ contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript as outlined above, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers should disclose to journals if and how AI technology is being used to facilitate their review. Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to requests to review and to submit reviews within the time agreed. Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, and polite.

Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.