Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: The peer review process assists Editors/Editorial board in making editorial decisions and can also contribute to the improvement of the paper/book through editorial communication with the author.
Promptness: Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a timely review is not possible should notify the Editor/Editorial board and excuse themselves from the review process.
Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be kept confidential. They may not be shown to or discussed with others unless approved by Editors/Editorial board.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the appropriate source citation. A reviewer should also alert the editors to any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published paper/book of which he/she has personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing manuscripts must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper/book.