The reviewer’s role is vital in maintaining the quality and integrity of the publication process. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback to improve the quality of submitted manuscripts. Below are the guidelines for reviewers:

1. General Guidelines

• Ensure the review process is conducted with confidentiality and impartiality. Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.
• Avoid conflicts of interest. If a conflict arises, promptly notify the editor and decline the review.
• Provide constructive feedback, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, with specific suggestions for improvement.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript in the following areas:

a. Presentation

• Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
• Are the figures, tables, and supplementary materials appropriately used and effectively presented?

b. Writing Quality

• Is the language clear, concise, and free of errors?
• Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's formatting and referencing guidelines?

c. Length

• Is the manuscript’s length appropriate for the topic and scope?

d. Title and Abstract

• Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
• Is the abstract concise and informative, clearly summarizing the main objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?

e. Introduction

• Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context?
• Are the research objectives or hypotheses clearly stated?

f. Methodology

• Are the methods clearly described and appropriate for the research objectives?
• Is the methodology rigorous and replicable?

g. Results

• Are the results presented clearly and logically?
• Do the results align with the research objectives?

h. Discussion

• Is the discussion well-supported by the results?
• Does it provide insightful interpretation and implications of the findings?

i. Conclusion

• Does the conclusion adequately summarize the main findings?
• Are the implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research clearly stated?

3. Recommendation

After reviewing the manuscript, provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is publishable after addressing minor issues.
• Major Revision: Substantial improvements are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or falls outside its scope.

4. Timeliness

Complete the review within the specified timeframe. If you require an extension, notify the editor as soon as possible.

5. Ethical Considerations

• Ensure originality by identifying any signs of plagiarism. Notify the editor if ethical concerns are identified.
• Avoid using any information or ideas from the manuscript for personal advantage.