Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Religion and Policy will be :

  1. Confidentiality and Ethics:
    • Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the information of the articles they review.
    • They should act ethically and disclose any conflicts of interest to the editor.
  2. Qualifications and Expertise:
    • Reviewers should possess qualifications and expertise relevant to the research field of the assigned article.
    • They are expected to provide feedback based on their knowledge and relevant expertise.
  3. Reasonable Review Time:
    • Reviewers are expected to provide assessments within a reasonable time frame and in accordance with the deadlines set by the editor.
    • If unable to complete the review within the specified time, it is expected to inform the editor in advance.
  4. Thoroughness and Clarity:
    • Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and in-depth reviews of the articles.
    • They are expected to justify and support any suggestions or decisions they make.
  5. Identification of Plagiarism:
    • Reviewers are expected to identify potential plagiarism and report it if detected.
    • They must ensure that all references and sources are cited correctly.
  6. Openness and Transparency:
    • Reviewers should be transparent about their perspectives and evaluation approaches.
    • They are expected to provide comments that are constructive and solution-oriented.
  7. Disagreement or Dispute:
    • If reviewers disagree with the assessment or editorial decisions, they should express these differences of opinion politely and academically.
    • Editors are expected to manage conflicts and disagreements wisely.
  8. Professional Development:
    • Reviewers should continuously improve their skills through training and ongoing learning.
    • They should maintain integrity and high standards in performing their reviewing duties.
  9. Effective Communication:
    • If revisions are needed, reviewers are expected to provide clear guidance and facilitate effective communication with authors.
    • They should be ready to provide additional explanations or clarifications if necessary.
  10. Credit Acknowledgment:
    • Reviewers should request acknowledgment for their contributions in the peer-review process, such as having their names listed in the final credits or equivalent recognition.