Reviewers' Responsibility

Reviewers must consider the followings:

● Qualitative, contextual and scientific study in order to improve articles' quality and content.

● To inform the editor-in-chief when he accepts or rejects the review and introduces an alternative.

● Should not accept the articles which consider the benefits of persons, organizations and companies or personal relationships; also the articles which she/he, own, contributed in its writing or analysis.

● The reviewing must be carried out upon scientific documents and any self, professional, religious and racial opinion is prohibited.

● Accurate review and declaration of the article's strengths and weaknesses through a clear, educational and constructive method.

● Responsibility, accountability, punctuality, interest, ethics adherence and respect to others' rights.

● Not to rewrite or correct the article according to his/her personal interest.

● Be sure of accurate citations. Also reminding the cases which haven't been cited in the related published research.

● Avoid expressing the information and details of articles.

● Reviewers should not benefit new data or contents in favor of/against personal research; even for criticism or discrediting the author(s). The reviewer is not permitted to reveal any further details after a reviewed article has been published.

● Reviewers are prohibited to deliver an article to another one for review, except with permission of the editor-in-chief. Reviewer and co-reviewer's identification should be noted in each article's documents.

● Reviewer shouldn’t contact the author(s). Any contact with the authors must be made through the Journal.

● Trying to report “research and publication misconduct” and submitting the related documents to the editor-in-chief.