Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer reviewers assist the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified enough to review the research presented in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
All manuscripts received for review must be handled as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been referred to by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument that is stated as previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the Editorial board of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished information and / or ideas acquired through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts should decline the invitation to review.