Peer Review Responsibilities

1. Reviewers must assess all submitted manuscripts solely based on their scholarly content, without bias toward the authors' ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious beliefs, or political views.
2. Reviewers are expected to treat all details of the submitted manuscripts as strictly confidential.
3. Any instances of potential plagiarism or copyright violations identified in a submission should be reported promptly to the Editor-in-Chief.
4. Reviewers should approach all evaluations with fairness and objectivity, free from personal bias.
5. Reviewers must provide clear, constructive, and well-supported feedback regarding the submitted work.
6. If a reviewer feels they lack the necessary expertise to assess a manuscript or cannot complete the review within a reasonable timeframe, they should inform the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw from the review process.

Before Accepting the Review Invitation
Please consider the following:
1. Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? If the content falls outside your field, promptly notify the editor and, if possible, recommend a more suitable reviewer.
2. Do you have sufficient time? Reviews should be completed within two weeks. If you agree to review but need more time, please inform the editor or suggest an alternative reviewer.
3. Any potential conflicts of interest? While having a conflict of interest doesn't automatically disqualify you, please disclose any relevant conflicts to the editor before proceeding. If unsure, contact the editorial office for clarification.

Guidelines for the Review Process

When evaluating a manuscript, please consider the following elements:
1. Title: Does it accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
2. Abstract: Does it summarize the core points of the article effectively?
3. Introduction: Is the problem clearly introduced? Does it provide relevant background and context, outline key findings, and clearly state the research question, hypothesis, or methodology?
4. Content and Originality:
- Are there signs of plagiarism (e.g., over 25% similarity)?
- Has similar research been previously conducted? If so, does this manuscript still offer value?
- Does it align with the journal's standards and scope?
5. Scope: Is the topic aligned with the journal's focus and objectives?
6. Results: The results should be clearly presented in a logical sequence. Please consider:
- Are the analyses appropriate and well-executed?
- Are statistical methods used effectively?
- If better methods are available, suggest them.
- Interpretation should be left to the discussion section.

Writing Style and Clarity
1. Does the manuscript present a well-structured literature review?
2. Is it focused on a specific topic?
3. Is the language fluent, grammatically sound, and easy to follow?
4. Is it engaging and accessible for the reader?