Our peer review process is single-blind, meaning that the authors will not have the capacity to access the reviewers’ identities. Each manuscript will receive a minimum of two review reports. During pre-check, the authors can recommend reviewers. Alternatively, the journal's editorial staff will invite qualified members of the Editorial Board, qualified reviewers from the journal’s reviewer database, or new external reviewers found through web searches, to review the manuscripts.
Reviewers can be suggested by authors. Scholars with conflicting interests will not be taken into consideration by the journal's Editorial Office. When submitting their manuscript for peer review, authors can also list the names of possible reviewers they would like to exclude as reviewers. The Editorial Team will also honor the review requests if they do not impede the submission's objective and comprehensive evaluation.

The following general criteria must be fulfilled for selecting an appropriate reviewer:

1. The reviewer should not present any competing interests with any of the authors of a submitted manuscript.
2. The reviewer should not be affiliated with the same organization as the authors.
3. There is no track record showing that the reviewer has co-publish with the authors in the past three years.
4. The reviewer ought to be an MD or PhD.
5. The reviewer should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus or ORCID).
6. The reviewer ought to be seasoned academics in the field of the paper that was submitted.
7. The reviewer ought to have a formal, acknowledged academic affiliation.

The Editorial Office will send invitations to the potential reviewers in the Editorial Managing (EM) manuscript processing system. After accepting a review invitation, reviewers will be granted 7 to 10 days to complete their first review and 3 days to provide their report after reading a revised paper (if needed).

During the review, the reviewers should:

1. Rate the manuscript
   First, rate the manuscript in the aspects of scope, novelty, soundness, citation, popularity, clarity, language, and layout format.
2. Make an overall recommendation
   Provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript as follows:
           Accept in Current Form: Accept the paper without additional changes.
           Minor Revisions: The paper has a few flaws and might theoretically be accepted after revision based on the reviewer's comments has been made. Authors should provide the reviewers with a point-by-point reply.
           Major Revisions: The paper has substantial flaws. The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. Authors should take the revision seriously, make a thorough revision, and provide the reviewers with a point-by-point reply. If the author disagrees with the comments from reviewers, they should provide a rebuttal along with a point-to-point explanation. For each manuscript, a maximum of two rounds of significant revision are typically offered.
           Reject: The paper may be turned down without a chance to publish online as it contains significant errors and does not show any novelty.
3. Submit a detailed report
   The review report should begin with a brief summary, outlining the aim of the paper, its main contribution, and its strengths. Then, more specific comments to facilitate the decision-making of the Academic Editor should be added.

Below is a list of DOs and DON’Ts for the invited reviewers:

1. Reviewer should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
2. Reviewer should respect the confidentiality of peer-review and do not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
3. Reviewer should not leverage information obtained during the peer-review process for their own use or any other person's or organization's advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
4. Reviewer should declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
5. Reviewer should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
6. Reviewer should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
7. Reviewer should acknowledge that peer-review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing in a timely manner.
8. Reviewer should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
9. Reviewer should recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.
10. Reviewers should avoid identifying themselves with the authors in their comments or in the metadata of reports that are submitted in PDF or Microsoft Word formats.
11. Reviewer is not allowed to transfer the manuscript to any others or spread the work of authors in any group or network. Every gesture that may avoid the confidence of the work should be notified to the Editorial Office.

A customized reviewer certificate will be sent to each reviewer. The "Outstanding Reviewer Awards" will be granted to outstanding reviewers with the approval of the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.
A select outstanding reviewers may be promoted to join the Reviewer Board under the advice of the journal’s Editorial Office.

We fully adhere to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other ethical standards for publication and research Ethics and Policies. Any misconduct violating these guidelines will result in the reviewers responsible for the reported misconduct being blacklisted by the journal.