Reviewers Responsibility

          1. Impartiality to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers need to conduct an impartial evaluation of the manuscript based solely on its academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope, without bias or prejudice. In addition, the reviewers need to use clear and objective criteria to assess the quality, methodology, significance, and clarity of the research presented in the manuscript. The ethical guidelines and standards in the peer review process should be adhere to ensure integrity, fairness, and professionalism in their interactions with the editor and authors.

          2. Promptness and Timeliness

Reviewers should complete the review process within the agreed-upon timeframe specified by the editor or journal, typically within a few weeks of receiving the manuscript. If the reviewers are unable to meet the deadline for reviewing the manuscript, they should inform the editor promptly and provide a valid reason for the delay. It is important that the reviewers recognize the importance of timely reviews in facilitating the editorial decision-making process and advancing scholarly discourse. If any chosen reviewer feels inadequately qualified to evaluate the research presented in a manuscript, they should promptly inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

          3. Standard of Objectivity

The reviewers need to refrain from allowing personal beliefs, preferences, or preconceptions to influence the review process, ensuring fairness and equity in the evaluation. They also should clearly justify critiques and suggestions with specific examples from the manuscript, providing authors with clear and constructive feedback. Thus, the judgement and recommendation should be based on concrete evidence presented in the manuscript, rather than subjective opinions or assumptions.

          4. Confidentiality

All information pertaining to the manuscript, including its content, findings, and authorship should remain confidential and is not disclosed to anyone other than the editorial team. The reviewers should store and handle all materials related to the review process in a secure manner, preventing unauthorized access or disclosure. Furthermore, the reviewers should avoid using or disseminating any confidential data or information obtained during the review process for personal gain or unauthorized purposes. The privacy rights of authors should be respect and refrain from discussing or sharing details of the manuscript with third parties without explicit permission from the editor.

          5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

The reviewers will have to promptly disclose to the editor any conflicts of interest that may influence their impartiality in reviewing the manuscript, such as financial interests, personal relationships, or competitive affiliations with the authors. The reviewers should refrain from reviewing the manuscript if a significant conflict of interest exists that may compromise the integrity of the review process, and notify the editor accordingly.

          6. Acknowledgement of Sources

The reviewers need to alert the editor to any instances of potential plagiarism or improper use of sources observed in the manuscript, providing specific examples and evidence to support the concerns. They can also encourage authors to support their arguments and claims with appropriate citations and references to relevant literature, enhancing the credibility and validity of their work. The reviewers also should acknowledge and recognize the contributions of previous research, ideas, or concepts relevant to the manuscript's topic.