Our peer review process is single-blind, meaning that the authors will not have the capacity to access the reviewers’ identities.

Each submitted article receives a minimum of two review reports. During pre-check, the Academic Editor can recommend reviewers. Alternatively, the journal's editorial staff will use qualified members of the Editorial Board, qualified reviewers from our database, or new reviewers found through related article web searches.

Reviewers can be suggested by authors. Potential conflicts of interest will be avoided, and people 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 have excluded from consideration. The Editorial Team will also honor the review requests if they do not impede the submission's objective and comprehensive evaluation.

The following criteria must be fulfilled by every reviewer:

1. The reviewers should not be in conflict with any of the authors' interests.
2. The reviewers should not be affiliated with the same organization as the writers.
3. It was not appropriate for the reviewers to co-publish with the writers during the previous three years.
4. The reviewers ought to be an MD or PhD.
5. The reviewers should have relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus or Orcid).
6. The reviewers ought to be seasoned academics in the field of the paper that was submitted.
7. The reviewers 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. 

To help build harmonious long-term cooperation relations, peer reviewers should:

1. 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. 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. not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
4. declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
5. do 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. be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
7. acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing in a timely manner.
8. provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
9. recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

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 typesetting.

2. make an overall recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript as follows:

• Accept in Current Form: No changes are needed to accept the paper.
• Minor Revisions: The paper has a few flaws and might theoretically be accepted after revision based on the reviewer's comments.
• Major Revisions: The paper has big 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 the paper online as it contains significant errors and does not show any novelty.

3. submit a detailed report 

It is recommended you provide us with a brief summary first, outlining the aim of the paper, its main contribution, and its strengths. Then add more specific comments to facilitate the decision-making of the Academic Editor and author review.

Advantages for Reviewers

A customized reviewer certificate will be sent to each reviewer.

The "Outstanding Reviewer Awards" will be granted to outstanding and positive reviewers with the approval of our Editor-in-Chief.

Exceptional reviewers will be promoted to the Reviewer Board by the journal Editorial Office.

Declaration of Confidentiality

As the peer review process is single-blind in our journal, the authors will not have the capacity to access the reviewers’ identities. 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. It is not allowed for reviewers to transfer the manuscript to any others or spread the work of authors in any group. Every gesture that may avoid the confidence of the work should be notified to the Editorial Office.

Research and Publication Ethics

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 be expelled and excluded from our journal.