Journal uses peer review process, which means the identities of the authors are concealed the reviewers, and vice versa. More information about Peer Review Process is available on publication website. To facilitate this, please include the following separately like: Title Page, acknowledgements, declaration of conflict of interest statement. Blinded manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper (including the reference, figure, tables and any acknowledgement) should not include any identifying information, such as the author’s name or affiliations. We follow-up peer reviewed guideline of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). http://www.wame.org/about/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical (1)
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethic-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and observe good reviewing etiquette.
Any selected referee 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 decline to participate in the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential document. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editorial office of journal.
Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with editor in order to ensure that confidentially is observed and that participants receive suitable credit.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal purpose.
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected paper etc.