Reviewer's Guide

Once the article passed the in-house check, the editorial board select the reviewers for the peer review process. The selection of the reviewer not only depend on the relevance of the article to the expertise of the reviewer but also the reputation and past experiences with the respective reviewer. The editorial decision of whether to accept, reject or defer the article mainly depend upon the reviewer’s opinion regarding a particular manuscript.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution of Peer Review

Peer review assists the Editor in Chief and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and it also assist the authors in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

The confidentiality of the manuscript must be maintained by the reviewers. They must not be shown to, or discussed anything regarding the paper with, others except as authorized by the Editor in Chief.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention on any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.