It is of utmost importance for reviewers to uphold confidentiality protocols when reviewing articles. Reviewers or referees must maintain the integrity of the article’s facts and not share them before publication. Furthermore, reviewers must destroy the copy of the article and disclose any tools (e.g., AI) that they have used for peer review. In case of conflicting interests, disclosing any associations or actions that could impact the assessment and withdrawing from the process is imperative.

1. Reviewers should read and comprehend our journal's publication ethics policy as well as the guidelines for submission documents.
2. Reviewers may decline an invitation to review a research work if they do not agree with the journal's ethics policy or if the work submitted for review is not relevant to their area of expertise.
3. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of their work.
4. Reviewers should not try to identify the author of a research work that has been submitted for review and should keep their anonymity.
5. Reviewers should be able to communicate effectively with the editors and publisher.
6. If reviewers have any questions about the journal or its policies, they should contact the editors.
7. Reviewers should evaluate a piece of work honestly, rigorously, and objectively. Avoid using unprofessional or subjective language in the review. Within 28 days of receiving the research work for review, the review report should be sent to the editor.
8. Reviewers should be prepared to review the previously reviewed research. Within 30 days of receiving the research work for review, the review report should be sent to the editor.
9. Reviewers may make changes and report any ethical violations to the editor. The reworked papers of the author may be sent to them for reconsideration.

Reviewing an article provides editors with the essential information required to make informed decisions about its suitability for publication. Additionally, it helps authors enhance the quality of their work. A comprehensive and informative article evaluation requires reviewers to assess various aspects, including technical details, to provide a thorough and insightful review. The reviewer should immediately inform the editor if anything listed below impacts the review process.

• Inflammatory Contents: Kindly verify whether the article contains any language that may be deemed offensive or defamatory. Also, please ensure that the article is written only in English language.
• Specialization: Kindly confirm whether the article’s parts, analyses, data, or methods surpass your understanding or comprehension.
• Technical Deficiency: Kindly confirm if the article has any technical deficiencies that may impede its publication, and if so, please furnish detailed particulars.
• Advancements: Kindly share a detailed list of supplementary data and facts, if any, to enhance the credibility of the revised article.
• Uncertainties and Statistics: Ensure all error bars in the corresponding figure legends are appropriately labelled.
• Sources: Please verify whether appropriate references are included to support any findings.
• Clarity: Could you kindly confirm if the abstract, introduction and conclusions are technically sound and understandable for an audience with advanced knowledge in the field?
• Methodology: Please express your opinion on the methodology’s validity, the data’s precision, and the communication’s efficacy.
• Outcomes: Please summarise the main highlights of your work that you consider essential.
• References: Please verify whether references in the article cite the relevant literature appropriately and accurately.

Recommended Reviewers

You can suggest expert reviewers who objectively assess your work throughout the article submission process. It is essential to consider potential conflicts of interest when recommending reviewers. Please note that the editors may consider any potential conflicts of interest, such as prior knowledge of your submission, recent collaboration with an author, or affiliation with the same institution as an author. Please remember that inviting recommended or anti-reviewers to evaluate your article is solely at the editors’ discretion.

Acceptance and Page Proofs

After addressing all editorial matters, the editorial board will assess the article for publication. The date in the article indicates the successful completion of the quality assessment and confirmation of the submission guidelines. The acceptance date of the article unequivocally indicates the exact moment at which the editor releases the acceptance letter to the author. Upon acceptance of the article, the author shall promptly provide the editor with a flawless final proof of the article (Acceptance and Page Proofs). Approval from the publishing team is mandatory for any revisions to the manuscript’s author list, title, or scientific accuracy. The journal holds absolute authority over the size and style of any submitted figures. Authors must comply with the guidelines set forth by the journal to ensure that their work meets the publication standards.

Petition for Reconsideration of the Rejected Article

Authors can petition the editors for reconsideration in the case of a rejected article. However, it is worth noting that petitions are not top priorities and take several weeks to process. After completing the peer review process, the author can submit a single petition for an article. However, the ultimate decision is left to the editor. The petition will evaluate whether the initial decision was materially inaccurate due to substantial inaccuracies or partiality by the reviewer or referee. The editor can schedule another peer review process for the article if the petition is valid.

Embargo Period for the Rejected Article

Authors can only resubmit rejected articles after a six-month embargo period. To improve the quality of the article, it is imperative for the author to meticulously review and incorporate all the required remarks provided by the editor. During resubmission, the author must explain the changes made to the article. Upon resubmission of an article, the Associate Editor will be authorized by the General Editor to verify whether the revisions agree with the received negative comments.

COPE Guidelines References

1. Reviewer concerns about transparency of peer review process | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
2. Rights of reviewers | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
3. Reviewer's identity revealed | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
4. Editing peer reviews | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
5. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
6. Retraction guidelines | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics