Duties of Reviewers
Promptness
Any selected reviewer who feels 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.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Since the double-blind peer review process is being observed by the IRJSTEM, the anonymity of both parties (author/s and reviewers) will remain confidential. The communication between the corresponding author and the Editor should not be posted on any website or social media as well as the result of the Reviewer’s Report or Evaluation and any confidential materials without prior permission from the Editor whether or not the submission is eventually published.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment 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.
Editorial Responsibilities
Submitted papers will be evaluated based on their scientific and systematic research method and not through lack of technical novelty. The fair decision will be observed by the Editorial Board regardless of race, culture, origin, gender, or citizenship of the author/s. Situations that may lead to conflicts of interest should be avoided.