Ethics for Reviewer
Contribution to Editorial Board Decisions
Reviewers assist each Editor in making a manuscript eligibility decision. In addition, Reviewers also assist the Author in improving the quality of the substance of the manuscript content through the Editor.
Quickness
Any Reviewer selected by the Editor but who feels unqualified, uninterested, or does not have sufficient time to review the manuscript, must immediately notify the Editor and withdraw from the review process.
Secrecy
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Each Reviewer is not allowed to disclose or discuss the contents of the manuscript to anyone, except with the Editor's approval.
Objectivity Standard
The review should be conducted objectively. Subjective criticism for the Author's manuscript is not worth writing. The Reviewer must describe their views clearly and with an argumentative narrative.
Source Disclosure
The Reviewer must identify published scientific works relevant to the manuscript's content but have not been cited by the Author. In addition, if there are descriptions of observations, derivations, or arguments in the manuscript and have similarities to scientific works that have been published, then those references must be included and then questioned to the Author regarding the validity of this manuscript. The Reviewer must also state to the Editor if there are substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published articles.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Each Reviewer is not allowed to take part or all of the research material and ideas in the manuscript for personal gain. Reviewers should also reject manuscripts that are ultimately found to conflict of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships and connections with one of the Author, Companies, or Institutions concerned.
