Reviewer Guidelines

1. Review Process: A Double-Blind System

The Journal employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review system to ensure impartiality and fairness. Throughout this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

The process is structured as follows:

• Manuscript Assignment: Submitted manuscripts are assigned to an editor, who selects reviewers based on their expertise.
• Reviewer Invitation: An email invitation containing the manuscript's title and abstract is sent to potential reviewers. A period of 5 days is provided to accept or decline the invitation via the journal system.
• Review Period: Once accepted, a period of two weeks is allotted for the submission of a detailed evaluation. After this period, the editorial team may proceed with a decision without awaiting delayed feedback.
• Editorial Decision: The editorial decision (Accept, Reject, or Revise) is made based on the consolidated reviewer reports. The final decision is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
• Revisions: If revisions are requested, authors’ responses to reviewer comments may be sent for a follow-up assessment.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

A. Confidentiality
All details of the manuscript and the review process must be treated as confidential. The manuscript is not to be discussed with others, and its content must not be used for any personal or professional advantage.

B. Conflict of Interest
Prior to accepting a review assignment, any potential conflicts of interest must be declared to the editor. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Financial ties (e.g., funding, stock ownership)
• Institutional affiliations with the authors
• Collaborative or advisory relationships
• Personal relationships or strong academic biases
  If no conflicts exist, this must be explicitly stated in the review.

C. Objective and Constructive Assessment
Reviews are expected to be objective, fair, and scientifically rigorous. Constructive criticism aimed at improving the work is required. The use of offensive or dismissive language is unacceptable.

Manuscripts should be evaluated based on the following criteria:

• Originality & Significance: Whether the work presents new and important information and if the research question is significant.
• Abstract & Clarity: Whether the abstract accurately summarizes the paper and if the manuscript is well-organized and clearly written.
• Methodology: Whether the methods are appropriate and described in sufficient detail to allow for replication.
• Results & Interpretation: Whether the results are presented clearly and if the interpretations and conclusions are supported by the data.
• References: Whether the current literature is appropriately cited.

D. Recommendation
A clear recommendation must be provided to the editor, selected from the following options:

• Accept
• Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions
• Reject

This recommendation is to be supported by the specific, scientific justifications detailed in the report.

3. Structure of the Review Report

The review report should be structured into two main sections:

1. Confidential Comments to the Editor: This section is to be used for sensitive remarks, concerns about ethical issues (such as plagiarism or data manipulation), or conflicts of interest not to be shared directly with the authors.
2. Comments to the Author: This section constitutes the main body of the review and should be thorough and constructive.
   • Major Points: Fundamental issues related to the study's validity, methodology, or conclusions that are essential for publication must be addressed.
   • Minor Points: Specific, smaller issues such as typographical errors, unclear figure labels, or suggestions for improving clarity should be noted.

4. Recusal and Timeliness

If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the manuscript, suspects a conflict of interest, or is unable to meet the two-week deadline, the editor must be notified promptly and the invitation declined.

5. Reviewer Ethics and Misconduct

The highest standards of peer review are upheld. Complaints regarding reviewer misconduct, including bias, breach of confidentiality, or plagiarism, will be investigated thoroughly. Confirmed misconduct may result in the reviewer's permanent removal from the database.