• Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and forms the basis of the scientific method.
• Promptness and Quality: Any selected referees who feel unqualified to review the study reported in a manuscript or know that its prompt review will be impossible should inform the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
• Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review process must be accepted as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
• Objectivity: The reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting evidence.
• Acknowledgement: The reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statements about observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewers should also inform the editor for any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
• Conflict of Interest and Financial Support: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.