Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers-- being the basic support in maintaining the high quality of publications-- should be especially vigilant about the quality and originality of articles. The reviewer may inform the editor if he/she finds the article submitted to him/her for review is under consideration in any other journal of his/her knowledge.

If a reviewer finds that they are not adequately qualified to evaluate the assigned manuscript, cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, need longer time to review than the specified timeframe, or determine that the paper lies outside their area of expertise, they should promptly inform the editorial office and withdraw from the review process. This allows the editors to appoint an alternative reviewer. Where appropriate, the reviewer may suggest another suitably qualified colleague to undertake the review.

Reviews must always be conducted objectively, avoiding any form of personal criticism toward the author. Feedback should be presented clearly and supported by well-reasoned arguments.

Reviewers are expected to identify any relevant published research that has not been cited by the authors. Any statements or findings that have appeared previously should be properly referenced. Reviewers should also alert the Editor-in-Chief if they notice any significant overlap or resemblance between the manuscript under review and other published work known to them.

All information obtained through the review process is strictly confidential and must not be used for personal benefit. This obligation extends even to reviewers who decline to undertake the review. Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with anyone else. If consultation with a third party is deemed essential for a fair evaluation, the reviewer must first obtain permission from the editor.

Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists—whether arising from personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships with the authors or their organizations. Any potential conflict should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief, who will decide whether it disqualifies the reviewer from participation.

Reviewers are required to respect confidentiality throughout the review process. Disclosure of any manuscript details may infringe upon the authors’ rights. Similarly, reviewers’ anonymity and confidentiality are safeguarded by the editorial office. Confidentiality should only be breached in cases where misconduct or clear evidence of deception is suspected; otherwise, it must be maintained without exception. Editors must not share information regarding a manuscript’s receipt, content, review progress, critiques, or publication decision with anyone other than the authors and assigned reviewers. Requests to use manuscript materials for legal purposes should not be granted without the authors’ explicit consent.

Manuscripts sent for peer review are the intellectual property of the authors and must be treated as privileged documents. Reviewers may not publicly discuss or use the authors’ ideas before publication. They are prohibited from retaining, copying, or distributing the manuscript except with prior editorial authorization. Once the review is submitted, any copies of the manuscript should be deleted or returned to the editorial office. Reviewer reports are confidential and must never be published or disclosed without the mutual consent of the author, reviewer, and editor.

Reviewers may carry out their review on case-to-case basis-- there are no fixed rules outlined for analyzing the articles—however, scrutinizing an article for its worthiness, quality, and originality of the work must be the mandatory part of each review. If reviewer believes that the article may be accepted after revisions, he/she should provide clear suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if an article is found not to be worth publishing or has no real prospects of improvement after revision, it may be rejected straightaway.

In general, the following may be evaluated during a review:

  • Structure of the submitted article and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  • Purpose and Objective of the article
  • Sufficient details of Materials and Methods
  • Appropriateness between the Introduction and the Discussion section
  • Conclusion/suggestions provided
  • Sufficiency of References provided to validate the content
  • English grammar, punctuation and spelling (just mention that English editing is required)
  • Suitability of the article to the need of the field.

Reviewer are encouraged to:

  • Write clearly so that the comments can be understood by people whose first language is not English;
  • Avoid using complex or unusual words;
  • bullet the points and refer to the section of the manuscript while making specific comments;
  • If asked to comment only on some specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, clearly indicate these in the comments;
  • Be firm, yet polite while writing your comments:
  • Focus solely on assessing the content of the manuscript, avoiding any personal remarks or criticism. Maintaining professionalism in this way helps authors improve their work constructively

Reviewers may conclude their comments as one of the following:

  • Requires minor/moderate/major revisions
  • Rejected in the present form but, may be resubmitted after suggested revisions
  • Rejected with no resubmission

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

Although every effort is made to maintain a double-blind peer review process, it is still possible that a reviewer may recognize the author’s identity. Reviewers are trusted to provide an impartial evaluation even when familiar with the author; however, the following guidelines should be carefully observed in such cases:

If a substantial conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor.

If the conflict of interest could lead to significant bias—whether favorable or unfavorable—the reviewer is encouraged to decline the review invitation.