Notice: Trying to get property 'journal_name' of non-object in /home/oajpicom/public_html/jpub.org/reviewer-guidelines.php on line 22

Reviewer Guidelines

An editor selected at least two reviewers to evaluate the paper after it was assigned to them. The reviewer has one week from the date of the email invitation to ascertain whether the topic falls within the journal's purview and their area of expertise. If so, they may choose to participate in the review process by selecting the title of the pending review. It's possible that the editors forgot to take the reviewers' preferences after a week. Reviewers are free to hint at whether they accept or reject the invitation. The reviewers were given a four-week period in which to submit their impartial, independent, and scientific reviews. The editors did not take the reviewers' recommendations into consideration after four weeks.

Comments should be made in confidence and should advise or suggest to the editor whether the manuscript should be accepted, rejected, or modified. Scientific explanations ought to take these recommendations into consideration. In the event that a reviewer discovers a conflict of interest, they should notify the editor. Based on this, the reviewer has the option to accept or reject the assignment for review. Any potential conflicts of interest, whether they be institutional, financial, therapeutic, or otherwise, must be disclosed by reviewers. Conflicts of interest in research must be disclosed if none exist. We kindly ask that the reviewers refrain from using any information about the manuscript for their own purposes. Remarks that are offensive must be avoided, and criticism must be delivered objectively. The editor(s) reserve the right to modify reviewers' comments if they make inappropriate remarks. The final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or modification depended entirely on the editor.