Reviewer's Task

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviews assist editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with authors can also assist authors in improving papers.

Speed

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that immediate review is not possible, must notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.

Objectivity Standard

Review must be done objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Source Acknowledgment

Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation. Reviewers should also call the editor's attention any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers 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 gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with the author, company, or any institution with which the paper is related.