Reviewer guidelines

• Overview and Role: Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the high scientific quality, objectivity, and integrity of research published in the journal. Reviewers serve as independent advisors to the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

• Double-Blind Confidentiality: The journal operates under a strict double-blind peer-review system. Reviewers must keep all manuscript details, data, and author identities strictly confidential. Un-published manuscripts must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal research.

• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline an invitation to review immediately if they have a financial, personal, institutional, or collaborative conflict of interest with any of the authors or the submitted work.

• Assessment Criteria: Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, original contribution, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, accuracy of data analysis, and adherence to ethical standards.

• Anti-Plagiarism and Ethics Verification: Reviewers are asked to alert the editors if they suspect text recycling, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, or uncredited similarity to existing literature.

• Constructive Feedback: Review reports should provide clear, objective, and constructive comments to help authors improve their work. Tone must remain professional, respectful, and free of personal remarks.

• Specific Recommendations: Every evaluation report should end with a definitive recommendation: Accept as Is, Minor Revisions Required, Major Revisions Required, or Reject.

• Timeliness: Reviews should be submitted within the agreed timeframe (typically 2 to 3 weeks). If a delay occurs, reviewers must notify the Editorial Office promptly to arrange an extension or transfer the assignment.