Review Guidelines

  1. Reviewer assists the editor in making editorial decisions, make sure that the manuscript topic fits with the journal’s scope, and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. 
  2. Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in the manuscript should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. 
  3. Review process should be conducted objectively based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s). Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewer should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 
  4. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied. 
  5. Privileged information or ideas obtained through review process must be kept confidential. Reviewers should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor. 
  6. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The references should be written using Harvard style. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.