After receiving a request to conduct a peer review, it is crucial for the reviewer to respond in a timely manner. Whether accepting or declining the request, a prompt response helps ensure the efficiency of the editorial process. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, early notification allows the editor to find a replacement and prevents unnecessary delays in the publication process. Reviewers are also required to declare any conflicts of interest—personal, professional, or institutional—that could influence their objectivity in evaluating the manuscript. If uncertain about a potential conflict, reviewers are encouraged to consult with the editor or publisher. Additionally, reviewers should possess sufficient expertise in the relevant field to provide an accurate, in-depth, and meaningful assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality and contribution.
Confidentiality is another key principle in the peer review process. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the author's identity and the contents of the manuscript. The manuscript should be read and analyzed solely for the purpose of review and must not be shared or used for any other purpose. Review comments should be objective, honest, and constructive. Criticism should be communicated professionally, without being derogatory, hostile, or demeaning. The primary aim of peer review is to support authors in improving their manuscripts while upholding the academic standards of the scholarly journal.
