Reviewer's

Manuscript reviewers are key persons and helping to publish accurate, informative, and inventive research papers. This journal trusts upon the knowledge and expertise of reviewers to finally decide which manuscripts will be included in publication. Reviewing manuscripts is an important step in the publication process. Following is the list of points must be take care by the reviewer.

• Adhere to the policy of confidential peer review of this journal. This includes, but is not restricted to, keeping their identity hidden from authors and not externally distributing any research work or not going to take direct or indirect benefits.
• Type of manuscript will be either core research paper or review paper and it must be original research findings with complete clarity of the techniques and methods for reproducibility.
• When invited for review process clarify with editor that your expertise and fields of interest cover the topic of the manuscript or not.
• Inform Editor if there is a conflict of interest with one of the authors of manuscript and decline an invitation to review.
• Once the reviewer accept the manuscript, the process of the review must be completed within three weeks of time.
• Reviewers serve as mentors to authors and help them revise the submitted article and improve the quality of their research work. Comments could be complimentary and vital to the process. The goal is to help authors to identify the strong and weak points of their manuscripts and improve the quality of the journal.
• Non-technical nonetheless important points should be checked by reviewers like: the submitted manuscript should not exceed 4,000 to 6,000 words in length, Figures should be limited to ten or fewer, all tables, figures, and diagrams should have appropriate captions, sections within manuscript should be divided using sub headlines etc.
• When making a decision on manuscript, the status of the submitted manuscript should be selected from anyone of the given options; accepted, need revision, rejected or out of the scope of this journal with detailed justification.
• Reviewer is required to complete the review process in the stipulated time. If the reviewer fails to review within the stipulated time, he is requested to acknowledge the same to the editor for the delay and may request for the extension of time if applicable.