Peer Review Process

Peer Review / Review Policy

Contributions to Editorial Decisions
Peer reviews help the editor in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with the author it can also help the author improve the paper.

Punctuality
Each selected reviewer who feels that he is not eligible to review a manuscript or knows that an appropriate review is not possible must inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality
Each text received for review is a confidential document. The text must not be shown or discussed with other people except with the editor's permission.

Standard of Objectivity
Review must be done objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The review must express views clearly with supporting arguments.

Source Recognition
The review identifies relevant published works that have not been quoted by the author. Any statement that observations or arguments have been reported previously must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should also ask the editor's attention about the substantial similarity or overlap between the text being considered and any other published texts that have their own understanding.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Special information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Review may not consider texts that have conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any writer, company or institution connected with the text.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review research or knows that its prompt review will not be possible to notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Objectively reviews should be conducted. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should publish relevant work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is observed by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call editor's attention any substantial similarity between manuscripts under consideration and any published paper from which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Process Review
Submitted papers are evaluated by reviewers for contributions, originality, relevance, and presentation. The Editor will inform you of the results as soon as possible, hopefully between 1 - 2 months. Please note that the paper submission to journal the duration of the review process can be up to 3 months.

Review Process
The text sent is evaluated by the reviewer for contribution, originality, relevance, and presented. The editor will notify you of the results of the review as soon as possible, between 1-2 months. Please note that maybe submitting a text to a journal with the duration of the review process can be up to 3 months.