1) Confidentiality

• Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Do not share, discuss, or cite content before publication.
• Delete files after review submission unless otherwise instructed.

2) Objectivity and Fairness

• Base reviews on evidence, not personal preferences or biases.
• Provide balanced assessments of strengths and weaknesses.
• Refrain from derogatory, dismissive, or offensive comments.

3) Timeliness

• Acknowledge invitations promptly (within 3–5 days).
• Complete reviews within 14–21 days of acceptance.
• Notify editors immediately if unable to meet deadlines.

4) Ethical Standards

• Identify suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or duplicate publication and report confidentially to editors.
• Highlight missing ethics approvals, consent statements, or trial registrations where relevant.
• Avoid coercive citation or recommending irrelevant references.

5) Conflicts of Interest

• Disclose potential conflicts (financial, institutional, personal, or academic relationships).
• Decline reviews when impartiality is compromised.
• Maintain transparency and integrity in all interactions with editors.

6) Structure and Quality of Reports

• Provide clear, constructive, and actionable feedback.
• Organize reports under: Summary · Strengths · Major Issues · Minor Issues · Recommendation.
• Ensure comments are specific, evidence-based, and helpful for authors’ revisions.

7) Professional Conduct

• Respect diversity, inclusivity, and equity in scientific evaluation.
• Use professional, courteous language in all correspondence.
• Avoid personal criticism of authors.

8) Reviewer Checklist

9) Recognition and Benefits

• Eligible for annual reviewer acknowledgments (with consent).
• Can request review credit via ORCID and other recognition platforms.
• Exemplary reviewers may be invited to editorial board roles.