PEER REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author to give proper assessment and judgement of the submitted paper.
Reviewers should immediately inform the editor if any form of plagiarism is identified within submitted work.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting rationale arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should point out on relevant published work which is not cited in the article.
Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author to give proper assessment and judgement of the submitted paper.
Reviewers should immediately inform the editor if any form of plagiarism is identified within submitted work.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting rationale arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should point out on relevant published work which is not cited in the article.
Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.
