The peer review’s objective is to enhance the standard of the manuscript that is under review, and, also of the material, which is finally published. Careful peer review is a tedious task, however, it is important to satisfy the standard of scientific journals. Our Journals, as well as organizations and related societies are extremely thankful for the energy and time invested by you in the review process.

All our journals follow the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ( We do our level best to make sure that the peer review is timely, impartial, and fair. The importance of the manuscript, its clarity and novelty, as well as the study’s validity and its significance to the aim of the journal, are certain aspects which decide whether to accept or reject a manuscript for publication.

To find prospective reviewers, we make use of an extensive collection of sources, comprising the personal knowledge, editorial board, bibliographic databases and author suggestions. The evaluation of the reviewer has an important role to play in our judgment of accepting or rejecting a manuscript.

A single-blind process of review is operated by our journals, in which the reviewers’ identities are concealed from the authors, but, authors’ identities are not concealed from the reviewers. However, reviewers have an option of signing their reviews, if they want to.

Notes for Reviewers

  • Reviews must be carried out impartially and accurately. Personal criticism, directed at the author is inappropriate. In case, the research stated in the manuscript is faulty, condemn the science, not the scientist. Any kind of personal criticism will probably result in the author disregarding valuable comments, resulting in the review being less suitable to your arena. Criticisms must be impartial, and, not just the dissimilarities in outlook, and, should be meant to aid the author in enhancing his/her paper.
  • You must not agree to evaluate the manuscripts wherein you have conflicts of interest, as a result of collaborative, competitive, or other links or relations with institutions, businesses or authors, linked to the papers.
  • In case, your earlier or current link with the author(s) or the author’s institution may be understood as producing a conflict of interest, however, no real conflict is present, please cover this matter in your personal comments to the editor. In case of doubt, kindly get in touch with the Editor who asked for the review, prior to accepting.
  • Respect the manuscript’s confidentiality, unpublished manuscripts must not be discussed with the colleagues, nor should the information of these manuscripts be used in your personal work. In case, you believe that a particular coworker is more capable to review the paper given to you, request for a permission from the editor to pass the manuscript to that person. Your review as well as your reference must be deemed confidential.
  • In case, you want to be anonymous, make sure that you don’t give comments to the authors, which may act as hints to your identity.



Comments given by you to the Editor would be presented only to the Editor-in-Chief and the Handling Editor. They must comprise any likely conflicts of interest. Constructive criticism as well as comments about the manuscript must be put in the Comments to the Author.



Comments given by you to the Editor would be presented only to the Editor-in-Chief and the Handling Editor. Once a decision is made by the editor, the comments are also conveyed to the manuscript’s authors as well as to the other anonymous reviewers.

It is important for the comments to be constructive and intended to improve the manuscript. You must see yourself as a mentor to the author. The comments must be as comprehensive and as thorough as possible. Openly convey your opinions with the help of supporting references as well as arguments, as required. Convey flawless views regarding the relevance, weaknesses as well as strengths of the manuscript, its novelty as well as its significance to the arena. Most useful are the precise comments, which mention line numbers. In case, you believe that you are not qualified to address particular parts of the manuscript, kindly enclose an account to recognize these fields.

Start by classifying the chief offerings of the paper, its chief strengths, weaknesses, as well as its fitness for publication. Kindly comprise specific and general comments, both, abiding on the above questions, plus highlight your major points.

Back up your negative or positive general comments, with precise proof.

You may also use the Note tool to make comments straightaway on the manuscript PDF. Though, we don’t require you to copy-edit the manuscript. In case you wish to annotate the PDF, kindly also comprise your general comments’ summary. You can also upload other documents (e.g. – beneficial references, your evaluation in form of a document). To uphold your anonymity, the journal editorial assistant would not show your identity in the manuscripts’ properties.

Points to reflect in your review:

  • Is the manuscript’s topic suitable for the Journal? Is the information of substantial appeal to the extensive readership of the Journal?
  • Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions, precisely and unfailingly replicate the paper’s main point(s)?
  • Is the text easy to follow, brief, as well as stimulating, without repetition?
  • Is the objective clearly specified?
  • Are the methods appropriate, current, technically sound and described openly enough, in a way that the work can be reiterated by someone else?
  • Is the research ethical, have the appropriate consent/approvals been obtained?
  • Are appropriate statistical analysis used? Are these adequately rationalized and clarified?
  • Are results specified in the paper, backed by data? Can they be verified easily by observing figures and tables? Are the outcomes unreasonable?
  • Are the figures and tables required, well designed, properly labelled, and easily understandable? Is the information given in the figures and tables old? Is it repeated in the text?
  • Are the conclusions backed by the data presented?
  • Are the cited references the most suitable to back the manuscript? Are citations used for all declarations of fact, not backed by the records in the paper? Are any important references missing?
  • Consider the length of the manuscript, in relation to the content. Must the parts of the paper be extended, shortened, combined, or removed? (Kindly be precise, and don’t just direct total reduction by x%).
  • Does the manuscript comply with the Instructions for Authors?

Kindly also report on any conceivable research or publication misconduct as per the below points.

  • Is any conclusions or data reported, is by this time in press or published? If yes, kindly give details.
  • Is the work plagiarized?
  • Is there any sign that the information might have been false, fabricated or unsuitably influenced?
  • Are all the pertinent competing interests stated by the authors?