If you’re interested in reviewing article, read the following general guidelines and send an application to the specific journal. Selection of the reviewer is at discretion of the chief editor of the journal. However, the following general guideline will help you to make your increase chances of selection.

General guidelines:

• One of way to become reviewer is nomination by the recognised researchers in the relevant fields (or members of the advisory board). The Journal's editor has to approve any nominees for review.
• A potential reviewer can directly apply with CV to the editor requesting to become a reviewer. The journal editor will review the application and approve, if found suitable.
• Reviewers ought to be experts in the relevant fields or domains. When nominated, s/he must have been actively engaged in research or teaching for the previous two years, and s/he must possess a thorough understanding of the materials under review.
• He or she has to be informed about the most recent advancements in the relevant scientific fields.
• A doctorate degree or an MD/MS degree in a related field, along with at least two years of research experience, is expected requirement for the potential Reviewer to demonstrate their individual expertise in the field relevant to that Journal and Publication.
• Prior review experiences for other journals, periodicals, and conferences held by accredited professional associations or societies; At least two recent publications in widely circulated journals or periodicals that are leading publications in the related scientific field.
• The Chief Editor of the journal is in charge of the final selection. The criteria listed in this guideline only act as a minimum prerequisite for choosing a reviewer.

Duties of Reviewers

• Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and can help authors improve their manuscripts through editorial communications with them. Peer review is the foundation of scientific endeavour and a crucial part of formal scholarly communication. Reviewers who want to be involved in the scientific process have a responsibility to contribute fairly to the review process.
• If an invited referee is unfit to review a manuscript's research or knows that reviewing it promptly won't be feasible, they should inform the editors right away and decline the invitation to review so that other reviewers can be contacted.
• Manuscripts submitted for review should be treated as confidential documents; the Editor-in-Chief must grant permission before they can be shown to or discussed with other parties (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). If invited reviewers choose not to accept the review invitation, this also applies to them.
• order to help authors improve their manuscript, reviews ought to be conducted impartially and observations should be stated in a clear and concise manner with arguments to back them up. It is improper to criticise the authors personally.
• Reviewers ought to locate pertinent published work that the authors have not cited. The appropriate citation should be included with any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been published in earlier works. If a reviewer notices any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript being considered and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) that they are personally aware of, they should also let the editors know.
• The editors should be notified right away by any invited referee who has a conflict of interest stemming from competitive, cooperative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript and the work described therein. They should decline the invitation to review and declare their conflict of interest so that other reviewers can be contacted. Reviewers are not permitted to use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript in their own research without the authors' explicit written consent. Ideas or privileged information acquired through peer review must be kept private and not exploited for the reviewer's own gain. If invited reviewers choose not to accept the review invitation, this also applies to them.