Review process

(1) Submit the manuscript for primary selection to two professional counterpart reviewers for independent evaluation. Based on expert opinions, categorize the manuscript into three outcomes: rejection, revision, and acceptance.

(2) Consolidate the feedback from both experts, provide it to the author, and request revisions in accordance with reviewer suggestions while addressing expert opinions.

(3) Conduct a reevaluation after revising: The reviewer should provide a second opinion on the revised manuscript.

(4) The editorial department will return it to the author based on input from an editorial committee and ask for further revisions.

(5) Once again revise as per author's modifications before returning it back to our editorial department. The final decision regarding usability or rejection will be made by considering expert opinions during summarization process.

(6) Finally, submit your revised manuscript for final examination by our chief editor who will determine its usability or rejection based on their expertise.

Ethics of Peer Review

The Journal outlines the roles and responsibilities of reviewers in accordance with the ethical guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Reviewers should only agree to peer review within their area of expertise, providing accurate and authentic expertise as well as personal and professional information to journals. Consent must not be given solely for the purpose of accessing the manuscript without any intention of submitting it for review.

2. Reviewers should promptly respond to invitations for review, submit their opinions within the specified timeframe, and avoid causing delays in the publication process. If a reviewer is unable to conduct the review or requires an extension, they should inform the editorial department in a timely manner. When contacted by journals regarding matters related to manuscript reviews and requested information, reviewers should respond promptly.

3. Reviewers are expected to objectively evaluate the quality of manuscripts, research experiment results, theoretical work, and problem explanations while maintaining high scientific standards and writing levels. They should respect authors' independent thinking and enthusiasm for scientific research and innovation. Comments provided by reviewers should be constructive, honest, polite, avoiding insulting or hostile language; they must not be influenced by factors such as author's source or religious/political beliefs, gender or other characteristics.

4. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding personal information obtained from both authors and editorial departments along with all relevant materials contained in manuscripts. Prior to publication of a manuscript under review, reviewers must refrain from openly discussing an author's research work or appropriating their ideas for personal gain. After submitting comments on a manuscript, its content shall not be communicated with others unless necessary; if required it shall be deleted.

5. When instances of data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate image processing, unethical research practices, biased reporting, abuse of author qualifications, multiple or repeated publication, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest are identified during the review process, utmost attention should be devoted to potential academic misconduct such as omissions and misquotations. Even in cases where uncertainty arises, authors and editors should remain vigilant towards possible suspicions within the manuscript so that further verification or necessary explanations can be provided.

6. Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest with authors or research funders, and they should be mindful of potential conflicts when reviewing manuscripts. Examples of potential conflicts include recent collaboration between the reviewer and author, belonging to the same work unit as the author, direct competition between the reviewer and author, personal conflict or close relationship with the author, ongoing communication with the author, or having financial interests related to the manuscript. Whenever there is a possibility of bias, reviewers should actively recuse themselves from the peer review process and promptly inform the editorial office to withdraw relevant manuscripts if necessary.

7. Please refrain from requesting authors to cite the reviewers' own articles unless there is a strong academic justification. Revised: Kindly avoid requesting authors to cite the reviewers' own articles unless there is a robust academic rationale.

8. Invited reviewers should notify the Editorial Department if they intend to delegate the review to someone else. Impersonating another individual during the review process is considered a serious breach of conduct. Revised: Invited reviewers should inform the Editorial Department in case they plan to delegate the review to another person. Impersonating someone else during the review process is regarded as a grave violation of ethical standards.

9. If you have any subsequent information that may impact your initial feedback and suggestions, please contact the editorial department. Revised: Should you possess any subsequent information that might influence your original feedback and suggestions, kindly reach out to the editorial department.

10. Clear and reasonable grounds for rejection should be provided for manuscripts that are not accepted. Revised: Manuscripts that are not accepted must be accompanied by clear and justifiable reasons for rejection.

11. It is one's responsibility to decline reviewing a manuscript if it falls outside their area of professional expertise. Revised: It is incumbent upon individuals to decline reviewing a manuscript if it lies beyond their realm of professional expertise.