Peer Review

Peer review usually takes approximately a month to be completed. 

Reviewers may be and may not be the members of the Journal's Editorial Board, are independent from the authors and are renouned specialists in the appropriate field.

Contribution to the Decisions of the Editor

The process of peer review is an obligatory step in editorial desicions and in improving the paper through communication with the author.


The reviewer who was asked for peer review and feels the shortage of qualification in the appropriate field or knows about the lack of time or some other reasons that may make her review impossible at the appointed time is to notify the editor and relieve herself from the review process.


Manuscripts received for review must be processed as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with third parties except those authorized by the editor.


Reviewers should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is unsuitable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supproting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers are to indicate relevant published papers that have not been discused or cited by the author(s). Any previously reported observation, conclusion, or suggestion should come with the relevant citation. Reviewers should also inform the editor about any considerable similarity between the manuscript and any other published paper.

Conflict of Interests

Any information obtained within the process of peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the advantage of a reviewer or any other third party. Reviewers should relieve themselves from manuscript consideration in case of any conflict of interest arising from collaborative or competitive relatioship with any of the authors or companies (institutions) relevant to manuscripts.

Reviewer Misconduct

Editors will take a reviewer's misconduct seriously and investigate any evidence of it (such as confidentiality breach, non-declaration of conflicts of interest, improper use of confidential material, delay of peer review for competitive advantage, or plagiarism). The latter will be taken to the institutional level.