Peer Review Policy

  1. The reviewers of this journal should cooperate with the scientific editors to make decisions regarding the publication of the submitted manuscripts.
  2. This journal’s reviewers should preserve the data confidentiality.
  3. The reviewers should submit the viewpoints to the scientific managers in the specific time to make a decision regarding the manuscript publication or non-publication.
  4. The reviewers should keep the submitted articles confidential and not to use their data for personal purposes.
  5. The reviewers’ viewpoints regarding the submitted manuscripts should be scientific, technical, and professional.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts with conflicts of interest with one of the authors, companies, or institutions. The one who is offered peer review of a manuscript can refrain accepting that manuscript for review if there is any conflict of interest. Otherwise, the reviewer should clearly inform the journal’s editor about oneself conflict of interest.
  7. Reviewers and author(s) of a manuscript must refuse from communicating with each other (regarding the review of that manuscript) during the review process. If the reviewer deems it necessary to consult with another person for review, and this consult involves disclosing the content of the manuscript, this can only be conducted with the permission of journal’s editorial manager.
  8. The reviewer who accepts a peer review of a manuscript reviewed by a journal should conduct own review impartially and merely based on the scientific and technical features of the manuscript and should not be impacted by own individual relationship with the author(s) of the manuscript or other irrelevant agents.
  9. Reviewers should accept manuscripts for review in which they are professional. Otherwise, the reviewer must inform this issue to the editorial manager of the journal.
  10. In peer review, the reviewer must consider the manuscript strengths and weaknesses and, if possible, recommend some strategies to the author(s) to solve the issues. This should be conducted with respect to the author(s) intellectual independence.

In addition to the scientific and technical examinations in the review, the reviewer must inform the editorial manager of any non-compliance with the provisions of this guideline.