Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality and credibility of our Journal. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating submissions and providing constructive feedback to authors. These guidelines outline the responsibilities and standards expected of reviewers.

Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share or discuss them with others without permission from the Editor.  
- Objectivity: Provide fair, unbiased, and evidence-based evaluations. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.  
- Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. If you cannot meet the deadline, notify the Editor promptly.  
- Constructive Feedback: Offer clear, specific, and constructive comments to help authors improve their work.  
- Conflict of Interest: Disclose any conflicts (financial, institutional, personal, or professional) that may affect your ability to provide an impartial review.  

Evaluation Criteria
When reviewing manuscripts, consider the following:  
- Originality and contribution to the field  
- Methodological rigor and accuracy of data  
- Clarity of writing and logical organization  
- Relevance to the scope of the Journal  
- Proper citation and acknowledgment of sources  
- Ethical compliance in research and reporting  

Ethical Standards
- Do not use unpublished material for personal advantage.  
- Report any suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission) to the Editor.  
- Respect diversity and avoid discriminatory language or bias in your review.  

Communication with Editors
- Provide a clear recommendation (accept, revise, or reject) supported by your comments.  
- Highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.  
- Suggest improvements in structure, clarity, or methodology where appropriate.  

Recognition of Reviewers
- The Journal values the contributions of reviewers and may acknowledge their service annually.