For Reviewers

Review Criteria

Reviewers are the key to the success of every journal and are deeply appreciated, it’s important that reviewers give comprehensive unbiased suggestions based on the following criteria.

 

Relevance

Does the research fits the aim and scope of the journal?

 

Significance

Does the research have proposed novel ideas, approaches and results or have further developed the former research?

Does the research have certain impact on the field?

 

Design

Is the paper designed in a clear, logical and appropriate way with sufficient details to support it?

Does the design have validity with confounding variables, biases, subjects, settings, and conditions addressed?

 

Title and Abstract

Does the title represent the paper adequately?

Does the abstract summarize background, key contents, research purpose, significance and methods used?

 

Methods, Data and Availability

Are the methods appropriate for the research?

Are the methods sufficiently explained in details to permit the research to be replicated?

Are the data necessary, reliable, appropriate and sufficient for the research?

 

Conclusions

Do the data and methods support the interpretations and conclusions?

Are the conclusions and potential impact clear and reasonable?

 

Readability

Does the paper have grammatical errors?

Is the paper understandable with accurate word usage?

 

Ethical Standards for Reviewers
Ensuring Fairness
Reviewers should carefully examine personal schedules and research areas before accepting to review to make sure reviewing process can be conducted efficiently and timely. In addition, reviewers should give unbiased remarks on the manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the Authors.

Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must consult the Editor before agreeing to review manuscripts for which they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, companies or institutions connected to this paper. While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is rescinded.

Detecting Misconduct
If reviewers have noticed substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, reviewers should contact the Editor immediately.

Confidentiality.
Reviewers should not disclose any information obtained during the peer-review process, or use the unpublished materials in their own research without the written consent of the Author.