Preamble:

Review of the manuscript by reviewers is not only an essential component of formal scholarly engagement, but is also a fundamental step in the publication process, as it aids the Editor in the editorial decision-making. It also allows authors to improve their manuscripts through editorial communications. Scholars accepting to review a research paper have an ethical responsibility to complete this assignment professionally. The quality, credibility and reputation of a journal also depend on the peer review process. The peer review process depends on the trust and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfil ethically. 

Suitability and Promptness

The Reviewers should:

• Inform the Editor if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review.
• Immediately inform the Editor about any possible delays and suggest another date of submission for a review report.
• Be responsible for acting promptly and submitting a review report on time.

Standards of Objectivity

• The reviews should be objectively carried out with a consideration of high academic, scholarly and scientific standards.
• All judgments should be meticulously established and maintained to ensure the full comprehension of the reviewer's comments by the editors and the author(s).
• Both reviewers and the author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions,
• The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript, but it would be inappropriate to resort to personal criticism of the author(s), and
• The reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based on the quality of the research paper and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual bias.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

• A reviewer should not, for his/her research, use unpublished contents disclosed in a submitted manuscript.
• A reviewer should be honest enough to declare any potential conflict of interest (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) and withdraw from reviewing the manuscript.
• If the reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias, s/he should immediately return the manuscript to the Editor without review, and justify to him/her about the situation.

Confidentiality

• Reviewers should consider the research paper as a confidential document and must not discuss its content on any platform except in cases where professional advice is being sought with the authorization of the Editor
• Reviewers are professionally and ethically bound not to disclose the details of any research paper before its publication without the prior approval of the Editor.

Ethical Considerations

• If the reviewer suspects that the research paper is almost the same as someone else's work, s/he will ethically inform the Editor and provide its citation as a reference.
• If the reviewer suspects that the results in the research paper are untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the Editor.
• If there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, females, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), then this should be reported to the Editor.

Originality

For evaluating originality, the reviewers should consider the following elements:

■ Does the research paper add to existing knowledge as an INNOVATION?

■ Are the research questions and/or hypotheses in line with the objective of the research work?