Manuscripts received by The Journal will be evaluated by the Editorial board that will judge whether a manuscript is of potential interest to the readers of The Journal. Manuscripts that are of interest, formatted according to the guideline for Authors and presented fairly well are sent for review. Typically, one or two reviewers are employed. Manuscript may be sent to other specialized experts such as on statistics or a particular technique where a scientist in that particular technique is needed to evaluate it.

Reviewers are assessed on the quality of review and other performance characteristics by the Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal quality and performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to The Journal’s Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editor-in- Chief but otherwise kept confidential.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. A good review includes the following inputs from the reviewers:

• • identify and comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and characterization.
  • comment accurately and constructively on the quality of the Author’s interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its.
  • comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, independent of the design, methodology, results.
  • comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of substandard scientific
  • provide the Authors with useful suggestions to improve the comments should be constructive and Personal comments regarding the Authors is not permitted.
  • provide the Editor-in-Chief with the proper context and perspective to make a recommendation on the acceptability of the Editor-in-Chief then makes a decision based on the reviewers’ recommendation, as follows:
    • Accept without revisions;
    • Accept with minor revisions to be made by the Authors;
    • Return to the Authors for major modifications, Authors to revise & resubmit for another round of reviews depending on the request of the reviewers;
    • Reject, with encouragement for resubmission; reasons for rejection must be given by the Editor-in-Chief
    • Reject Outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems, or if the work constitutes any unethical publishing behaviour. The Editor-in-Chief must give the reasons for

Reviewers can recommend for particular course of action. However, the Editor-in-Chief may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice from different reviewers. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the Editor-in-Chief with the information on which a decision should be based.

All reviewers are informed of the journal’s expectations, and Editor-in-Chief will make every effort to assist reviewers in improving the quality of review. The Editor-in-Chief will access the quality of review routinely by ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics periodically.