Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and should be treated as such. They should not be shown to or discussed with others not authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (in exceptional and specific circumstances). This rule also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review the manuscript.

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript, or is unable to do so within the specified time frame, must immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to allow for the selection of another reviewer.

Any invited reviewer who has a conflict of interest due to a competing relationship or relationship with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript must declare their conflict of interest to the editors immediately to allow for the selection of another reviewer.

Peer review is an essential element of formal scholarly communication and a cornerstone of the scholarly enterprise. Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editors' communication with authors, can help authors improve their manuscripts.

Peer reviews should be conducted objectively, and conclusions should be clearly stated with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable.

Reviewers should identify and notify the editors of texts used but not cited by the authors, as well as any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other manuscript of which they have information.

Unpublished material described in the submitted manuscript should not be used for the purposes of research conducted by reviewers without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained in the conduct of peer review must remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes by the reviewers. This also applies to reviewers who decline an invitation to review a manuscript.