Notes for Reviewers

Based on trust, the reviewers’ and editors’ judgements must be made on the merits of the manuscripts only. If the identity of the author transpires in spite of the blind review process, such judgements must remain as unbiased as possible, regardless of personal or professional interest, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, political convictions, nationality, age, professional status, and institutional affiliation.

Any conflict of personal or professional interest must be reported to the Chief Editor. Reviewers should not evaluate a manuscript if there is a conflict of personal or professional interest.

Reviewers are expected to provide an evaluation, highlight strengths and weaknesses, and, when relevant, make suggestions for improvement if the manuscript is judged to be potentially publishable. 

Reviewers should base their evaluation mainly on the content and substance of ideas and not on formal matters such as the way the manuscript is presented or language-related issues, which would be dealt with by the editors after the decision is made to publish.

Reviewers are not expected to make corrections on the manuscript, but they are welcome to do so if they wish. 

If reviewers think they are likely they will not meet the given deadline, they should inform the Chief Editor in advance.

Finally, critical evaluation must always be constructive.