The journal implements a double-blind review, so we remove the author information when we send a manuscript out for peer review. If the reviewer wants to see the author information and believe that the information may help evaluate the manuscript, please feel free to contact editorial office by email. 

The Review Report includes 1) specific critics to the manuscript, which will be sent to the author(s), 2) summary sheet and 3) recommendation to the editors. All should be reported in the Review Form: PDF, Word. Detailed instructions for review and report are as follow.

Submit review report

Instructions to Reviewers

• Reviewers are obliged to treat the author and the manuscript with respect and should have no bias against the researchers or the research.
• Reviewer should not have any conflict of interest with regarding the assigned manuscript. Conflicts of interest can be defined as sets of conditions (e.g., academic competition or particular philosophic values and beliefs) that could result in a biased or unfair evaluation of the manuscript. The Editor may deliberately choose a reviewer with a known stance on a particular issue in order to obtain a balanced review of the manuscript. Reviewers who have any questions in this regard should consult with the Editor.
• Reviewers should provide an honest and constructive assessment of the value of the manuscript. An appropriate assessment includes 1) an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the study, 2) suggestions on how to make the manuscript more complete, relevant, and readable, 3) specific questions for the authors to address to make any revision of the manuscript acceptable and useful to the intended audience, 4) whenever possible, complete citations should be provided for important work that has been omitted.
• Reviewer must maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts and not use the data from such manuscripts before they are published or share the data with any others. If reviewers wish to use information from a manuscript that has been accepted for publication, they should ask the Editorial Office to contact the author(s) for permission.
• Reviewers must not use the peer-review process as a means to further their own research aims, specifically by 1) requiring authors to respond to questions that are interesting to the reviewers but that the study was not designed to answer, 2) suggesting that the editor reject work that contradicts or is in conflict with their own, or 3) using their reviews as an opportunity to suggest that their own published work be referenced unless it is appropriate.
• Reviewers who have reviewed a manuscript before for another journal should inform the Editor before they complete the review. The Editor can then decide whether a re-review is appropriate.
• Reviewers who agree to review a manuscript must complete their reviews within the specified time period. If it becomes impossible to complete the review on time, reviewers should so inform the editorial office and ask for guidance about whether to decline to review the manuscript or to take an additional specified period of time.
• Most importantly, the reviewer should complete the review report and evaluation form and submit it online to the Editorial Office.