Reviewers’ responsibilities:

The journal uses a double-blind system for peer-review; both reviewers and authors’ identities remain anonymous. The paper will be peer-reviewed by three experts; two reviewers from outside and one editor from the journal typically involve in reviewing a submission.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

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. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments on the manuscript that help the author(s) to revise the manuscript in higher standards and quality.

2. Promptness

Reviewers that feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

3. Confidentiality

The reviewers should treat as confidential document any manuscripts received for review. They manuscript should not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Reviewer misconduct

Ijssrr will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage.