Contribution to the editorial decision
Reviewing helps the Editor-in-Chief to make editorial decisions, as well as the communication between the Editor-in-Chief and the Author helps the Author to improve his/her work.
Any Peer Reviewer who doesn’t consider himself/herself to be competent to review the research presented in the manuscript or who believes that prompt consideration is not feasible must inform the Editor and exclude himself/herself out of the review process.
Any manuscript received for reviewing is treated as a confidential document. The materials are not demonstrated or discussed with anyone else except for the persons authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. The Peer Reviewers should express their opinion clearly and reasonably.
Confirmation of resources
The Peer Reviewers must identify corresponding published works that were not quoted by the Author. Any statement, notice, conclusion or argument must be accompanied by a corresponding reference. The Peer Reviewer must also draw attention of the Editor-in-Chief to any significant similarity or coincidence between the reviewed manuscript and any other published work.