• Article Acceptance: Reviewers assist the editor and the editorial board members  in determining whether to accept or reject an article. They also contribute to improve the quality of the articles by providing corrections to the authors.
• Timely Refereeing: Reviewers must complete the evaluation of the article and fill out the relevant form within the specified timeframe. If they require more time or are unable to review the article, they should inform the Editorial Office so that alternative reviewers can be invited if necessary.
• Right to Not Accept the Article: It is important not to accept the evaluation of an article if it exceeds the specified time. A reviewer who realizes their lack of expertise in assessing a research article should abstain from evaluating it.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the article evaluation process and should not disclose any information related to the article to anyone other than the editor without written permission from the author.
• Impartiality: Reviewers must evaluate articles impartially and fairly, avoiding personal biases in their judgments.
• Source Review: Reviewers have an obligation to identify and review the sources cited by the author. Any conclusions or discussions presented in the article should be accompanied by appropriate references. Reviewers should also inform the editor if they observe any similarities or overlaps between the submitted work and another article.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not use the information or ideas obtained during the evaluation process for personal gain. They should also refrain from evaluating articles that present a conflict of interest, such as financial, organizational, or personal connections with companies, institutions, or individuals associated with the articles.

When inserting comments on the article as part of the reviewing process, reviewers should ensure that their names are not visible in the comments.

Notes for Authors:

• Reviewers should state the main idea of the article as well as its strengths and weaknesses for publication.
• Reviewers' suggestions and comments should be constructive and helpful to the authors in improving the scientific quality of their paper.
• A comprehensive and detailed review, which provides explanations, weaknesses, strengths, examples, evidence, and references to the text of the article, has a greater impact than a review lacking such details. Therefore, reviewers should strive to provide a well-documented and defensible evaluation.
• If referees reject an article, they should provide reasons for their decision, which will be communicated to the author.
• To expedite the publication process, Reviewers should aim to minimize communication between the author and themselves. It is recommended to include all important information in the initial review report.

Notes for the Editor:

• If reviewers accept the article, they should send the reasons highlighting its importance, innovation, and suitability for publication to the editor.
• If reviewers reject the article, they should provide a brief explanation of the reasons for rejection.
• In case of detecting scientific fraud, conflict of interest, or any other concerns, additional explanations should be provided to the editor in the comments section.