Reviewers should not share any information from an assigned manuscript with third person without the prior permission from the Editor.
Reviewer with fair expertise should complete the review. Assigned Reviewer with inadequate expertise should feel responsible and may decline the review as it is presumed that reviewer will be an expert in the respective field.
Reviewer comments should appreciate positive aspects of the work, identify weakness and limitation of the article, and indicate the enhancement needed. A reviewer should explain and support his or her judgment clearly enough that Editors and Authors can understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported be accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the Editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. A reviewer should not use any kind of abusive language while commenting on an article. Judgment of each article should be done without any bias and personal interest by the assigned reviewer.
Reviewer’s decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin etc., of the authors.
To the extent feasible, the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. In such situation, reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest
Timely review and timely publication always give professional advantages and so it becomes important to meet the deadlines and send the report within the time period. The process of reviewing the article along with recommendations must be done within 14 days. Exceeding that will lead to delay in editor’s decision as well as delay in publishing that is again not a good sign.
