Instructions to reviewers  

The editorial team really appreciate the task of reviewers. The assessment and suggestions by reviewer's helps to convert the revision process into author's learning process. Moreover, the revision will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving the overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. It is important to remain that the comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. The reviewer should explain and support his/her judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.

When the reviewer make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:

- Reject (explain reason in report)

- Accept without revision

- Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article)

Reviewer’s Checklist

-        Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor you have read and

understood the research.

-        Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.

-        Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to the journal’s standards?

-        If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible.

-        Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, Title, Abstract, Introduction, Graphical Abstracts and/or Highlights, Method, statistical errors, Results, Conclusion/Discussion, language and References.