Peer Reviews

ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEWERS:
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Blind peer review by reviewers helps editors make decisions and can help authors improve their writing through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component in formal scientific communication and scientific approaches.
2. Timeliness of Review. If the assigned reviewer feels that he does not have the qualifications to review a manuscript or knows that it is impossible to carry out the review in a timely manner, the assigned reviewer must immediately notify the editor.
3. Confidential. Manuscript that has been received for review must be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript may not be shown to other people unless authorized by the editor.
4. Reviews must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers must express their views clearly accompanied by supporting arguments.
5. Completeness and Authenticity of References. Reviewers must identify published work that has not been cited by the author. A statement of previously published observations or arguments should be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers must notify the editor of substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript being reviewed and other articles that have been published, to the best of the reviewer's knowledge.
6. Conflict of Interest. Unpublished article material may not be used in the reviewer's personal research without written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must refuse to review a manuscript if the reviewer has a conflict of interest, which is caused by a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution related to the work.