Reviewer Guidelines

The review process is an essential role in the publication process of a manuscript. It supports an editor inconclusive on an article and allows the author to enhance the manuscript.
The academic journal engages a blind peer review system.
Before obtain to review manuscript reviewers should make sure that:

• The manuscript is within their area of expertise field (Skillfulness).
• They can devote the apparent time to handle a critical review of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest (COI) happens when there is a diversity between an isolated self-interest and his or her task to scientific and producing activities such that a rational looked-on might admiration if the individual’s actions or judgment was inspired by considerations of his or her interests.
"Reviewers should express their conflicts of interest and reject themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. 
Confidentiality: Reviewers should make sure that the review processes are confidential. Specifics of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential throughout and following the review process.
Plagiarism: ‘The utilizing of picking other research work or innovations and passing them off as one’s own’. It is immoral for reviewers to “use data obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage.
Justice: Reviews should be Faith, honest and objective. Reviewers should not be effect by:

• The religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author
• Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author

The reviewer should focus on the following:

• Creativity
• Contribution to the field
• Technical Quality
• Accurate of presentation
• Deepness of research
• Comments should be back by facts and constructive arguments concerning the content of the manuscript.
• Reviewers should avoid using “hostile, derogatory and accusatory comments”
• Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however, necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.

Timeline: Reviewers should have to accept manuscripts when they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and send comments on time.
Reviewer Decision: Reviewers’ decisions should be either:

• Accept
• Requires minor corrections
• Requires moderate revision
• Requires major revision
• Not suitable for the journal. 
• Reject

The recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.