Confidentiality: Information concerning manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and regarded as a protected information.
Recognition of Sources: manuscript reviewers must ensure that the authors have recognized all sources of data used in the research. The publisher must immediately inform any resemblance or connection between the manuscripts under scrutiny or any other published paper about which the reviewer has personal knowledge.
Standards of objectivity: the review of submitted manuscripts must be carried out critically, and the reviewers should express their opinions explicitly with supporting arguments.
Promptness: In the case that the reviewer does not believe it is appropriate to complete a review of the manuscript within a specified time, this fact must be conveyed to the publisher so that the manuscript may be forwarded to another reviewer.
Rules for reviewing: Reviewers are anonymous to authors (your username and contact information will not be included in the decision letter sent to authors). Use a professional approach in the comments. It should be aimed at assisting the author(s). Be as specific as possible in the comments.
A reviewer will also be required to make a manuscript evaluation on a scale of 1 - 5, as follows:
5 – Exceptional/award quality
4 – Above average/possible award quality
3 – Average paper; possibly, but not likely, of award calibre
2 – Below average paper/not worthy of an award
1 – Poor