Review Guidelines

Peer Review and Double Blind Process

Peer review, also known as refereeing, is a collaborative process that allows independent experts in the same field of research to evaluate and comment on manuscript submissions. The outcome of a peer review gives authors feedback to improve their work and, critically, allows the editor to assess the paper's suitability for publication.

Double-blind review: The identity of the reviewers and the authors aren't disclosed.

Review Report

Some general instructions regarding the review report for consideration. Please find these below.

It's important to read the whole article and any extra material that comes with it. Pay attention to the methods, figures and tables.
Please ensure that your comments are detailed so that the authors can comprehend and resolve your concerns.
Please keep your tone impartial and concentrate on providing constructive comments that will assist the authors in improving their work.

Review reports should contain the following:

A concise synopsis (one short paragraph) describing the purpose of the article, its primary contributions, and its strongest points.
In the article highlighting areas of weakness, the hypothesis's testability, and methodological errors if any.
Reviews include comments on the completeness of the review topic addressed, the relevancy of the review topic, the knowledge gaps that have been detected, the appropriateness of the references, and other factors.
Inaccuracies in the text or sentences that are confusing are pointed out by specific comments referring to line numbers, tables, or figures. In addition, these comments should be focused on the scientific substance rather than on any spelling, formatting, or English language issues, as these issues can be corrected at a later time by our internal team if necessary.

Rating the Manuscript

Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:

Presentation checklist

Title: Is the title adequate for the content, informative, concise, and clear?
Abstract: Is it comprehensive by itself? Is the important and essential information of the article included?
Figures and tables: Are they essential and clearly presented?
References: Are appropriate and adequate references to related works covered sufficiently in the list?

Quality Rating

Novelty and originality: Is the article novel and original? Does the article contain material that is new or adds significantly to knowledge already published?
Relevance: Is the article sound and not misleading? Does it provide sufficient in-depth discussion?
Completeness of presentation: Is the presentation complete for the article?

How confident are you in your rating of this paper?
Reviewer’s remarks to the authors (Will be share with Author)

Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication
Changes which must be made before publication

Reviewer’s confidential remarks to the editor (Will not be share with Author)
Overall rating and recommendation (State the reviewer’s opinion on the acceptability of the article by choosing one of the following:) (Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors.)

The article may be accepted for publication with/without correction.
The article may become acceptable after minor revisions of content as per the reviewer’s comments.
The article may need major revision referring to the reviewer's comments.
The article is unacceptable.

If reviewers become aware of scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical behaviour in connection with the paper, they should promptly notify the in-house editor.

Please see the following documents for additional information on how to write a critical review: