Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer

Peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript and providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors and editor about the submission. Peer reviewer discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluates the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before Reviewing

Reviewers should consider:

  • If the article matches their expertise. If this is not the case, please notify the editor as soon as possible. We will appreciate it if you recommend an alternate reviewer.
  • If there are any potential conflicts of interest; while conflicts of interest do not disqualify a reviewer, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please contact the editor. 
  • We expect a review to be completed within three weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know, and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer.


When reviewing the article, reviewers should familiarize themselves with Instruction for Authors and consider:

  • Scope: Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
  • Content Quality and Originality: Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards?  
  • Organization and Clarity:
    • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
    • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
    • Introduction: Does it summarize relevant research to provide context for the article?
    • Materials and Methods: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
    • Results: It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report.
    • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the results interpreted in the light of published research? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
    • Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

Final Comments

  • All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party.
  • Please do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical Issues (refer also to For Authors - Transparency Policy and a Cover Letter):
    • Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
    • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
  • Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor.

Submit a review

Please, complete the “Reviewer’s Comments” form and submit it by the due date to the receiving editorial office. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated.

When writing comments, please indicate the section of comments intended for only the editors and the section of comments that can be returned to the author(s). Please never hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office with any questions or concerns you may have.

Please submit your review/comments for the authors on the form at the journal website. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE COMMENTS WITH TRACK CHANGES IN THE MANUSCRIPT FILE, AS THIS IS NOT BLINDED!