Reviewers for submitted manuscript are selected by the journal Editors and Publishers. General guidelines for selection of reviewers are as:

• Potential reviewer must be nominated by the established scientists (or advisory board members) in the corresponding fields. Nominated reviewers must be approved by the editor of the Journal.
• Potential reviewers should be very good at the corresponding areas or fields. S/he should have a profound understanding of materials for reviewing, and s/he must be actively involved in research/teaching within the past two (2) years when nominated.
• Nominated Reviewer must demonstrate individual expertise in the field related to that Journal and Publication, with minimum requirement of a related Doctoral Level or MD/MS level Degree with at least two years of research experience in the related field.
• S/he must be familiar with current development of respective scientific fields.
• Nominated Reviewer must present evidence to show his/her outstanding status in respective research field.

Acceptable evidence includes:

1. At least two recent publications in internationally circulated Journals or Periodicals that are leading publications in the related scientific field;
2. Prior review experiences for other journals, periodicals and conferences held by accredited professional associations or societies.
3. Final decision of selection is the responsibility of Chief-in-Editor for the journal. Criteria provided in this guideline only serves as minimal requirement for the selection of a re-viewer. Chief-in-Editor for the Journal should consider other facts regarding its particular field and nominated reviewer in deciding whether to accept the nomination or not.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. The reviewer who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
2. Promptness: Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
3. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
4. Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
5. Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.