Reviewers are expected to provide an informed and timely review of the manuscript's scholarly qualities. They pay special attention to the manuscript's genuine contribution and uniqueness. The evaluation must be completely objective. The reviewers' judgment must be unambiguous and supported by reasoning.
The reviewers look for whether the paper fits the journal's profile, whether the explored topic and techniques are relevant, whether the information offered in the publication is scientifically relevant, and whether the presenting style and scholarly apparatus are appropriate. The format of the review is typical.
There must be no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the authors or funders of the research. If a conflict arises, the reviewer must contact the publisher as soon as possible. The reviewer should not accept papers for review outside of his or her area of expertise.
Any well-founded suspicions or knowledge of suspected ethical standards violations by the authors should be reported to the publisher by reviewers.
Reviewers should be aware of relevant published publications that were not considered in the manuscript. They may suggest specific references for citation, but they are not required to credit articles published by Sprin Publisher or their works unless it is justified.
The reviewers are supposed to make ideas to improve the manuscript's quality. If they recommend that the text be corrected prior to publication, they must explain how this will be accomplished.
Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as private papers. Without the authors' written authorization, reviewers may not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts.
Reviewers can download the reviewer's commenting format from here. upon completing the reviewer process you are hereby requested to fill out this form and submit it to email@example.com