Before the review

• Prior to receiving a manuscript confirm that the journal deals within your area of expertise, if it does not reflect your specialism contact editorial office so we can ensure you sending the right manuscripts.

• A prompt response declining the review invitation is immensely helpful. In such cases we request you to recommend a name or two to act in your stead.

• After receiving the manuscript Make a note of deadline when your review is due to avoid shower of reminders, if you require extra time period you can intimate us before.

• Confidentiality has key importance. Don’t share with any one without the permission from the editors and authors.

• Review report cannot be submitted by any other persons on behalf of the reviewer.

• We are always pleased to support reviewers so, if you have any concerns and questions that are not addressed here, do not hesitate to contact us.

The review

When you receive a manuscript for review, please consider the following from your own perspective as these allows flagging major issues early thereby saving time.

• What is the main concern addressed in the article? Does the article have anything interesting enough to attract the readers? And overall design of the study.

• Credibility of the topic and its scope of adding value to existing knowledge base.

• Quality of work, Is it clear and easy to understand?

• Review report cannot be submitted by any other persons on behalf of the reviewer.

• Are the conclusions reflects the arguments and facts that are mentioned earlier in the text?

• If any illustrations and tables are used, do they help the readers to understand the concept of the article or just superfluous.

• If any of the sections are unable to agree with the main concept of the article and seems unambiguous, reviewers can suggest ideas to authors to enhance those sections thereby contributing to the overall quality of the article.

• Reviewers are requested to make a comprehensive note on both major and minor flaws to support your judgment in specific, vague or unsubstantiated feedback is not recommended.

• Criticism must be constructive, Use diplomatic language throughout the review report, as the aim is to help the author(s) to improve their work and likely to reach publishable standard.