The peer reviewer is supposed to critically read and evaluate the manuscript in their area of expertise, and then provide respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. The reviewer should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, suggest ways to improve the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please consider the following:

Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?

If you receive a manuscript about a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please let the Editor-in-Chief know as soon as possible. Please recommend alternate reviewer(s) where you can.

Do you have time to review the paper?

Reviews of an article should be completed within 2 to 3 weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please notify the Editor-in-Chief and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible.

Are there any potential conflicts of interest?

While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office (

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

Content quality and originality

Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Is the research question important? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards?

Organization and clarity

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it accurately describe what the author(s) hoped to achieve, and clearly state the problem being investigated? The introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis or hypotheses and the general experimental design or method.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data were collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information for the research to be replicated? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; have the author(s) been precise in describing measurements?

Results: Have the author(s) explained what they discovered in the research? This section should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. Has the appropriate analysis has been conducted? Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the Editor-in-Chief when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section, but in the conclusion/discussion.

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the author(s) indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

Scope: Is the article in line with the scope of our journal?

Ethical Issues

If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, that the results are untrue or you have other ethical concerns, e.g. confidentiality, please let the editor know.


If you have any questions about the peer review process, please contact the editorial office (