Guidelines to reviewers
1.  Before you begin
i.    Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
a.    Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
b.    Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
c.    Do you have time? Before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
ii.    Respond to the invitation as soon as you can (even if it is to decline) – a delay in your decision slows down the review process and means more waiting for the author. 
2.   Managing your review
i.    Confidential material
a.    If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. 
b.    This means you can’t share them with anyone and you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the managing editor
ii.    Journal-specific instructions
When you sit down to write the review, you might consider some tips below about handling specific parts of the paper.
iii.    Methodology
If the manuscript you are reviewing is reporting an experiment, the following cases are considered major flaws and should be flagged:
a.    Unsound methodology
b.    Discredited method
c.    Missing processes known to be influential on the area of reported research
d.    Conclusions drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript
For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.
iv.    Research data and visualizations
Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images. Authors may add research data, including data visualizations, to their submission to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication. 
Critical issues in research data, which are considered to be major flaws can be related to insufficient data points, statistically non-significant variations and unclear data tables.
v.    Overview
If you don’t spot any major flaws, take a break from the manuscript, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, again make sure you familiarize yourself with journal-specific guidelines as stipulated in the journal’s guide for authors.
3.  Structuring your review
Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Your comments should therefore be courteous and constructive.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.
4.   Your recommendation
When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:
i.    Reject (explain your reasoning in your report)
ii.    Accept without revision
iii.    Revise – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether you would be happy to review the revised article). If you are recommending a revision, you must furnish the author with a clear, sound explanation of why this is necessary.

A sample of a review form that an author will be required to fill and submit accommodating responses to reviewers’ comments is attached as Annex No.5 
5.   After your review
Do not forget that, even after finalizing your review, you must treat the article and any linked files or data as confidential documents. This means you must not share them or information about the review with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.
Finally, we take the opportunity to thank you sincerely on behalf of the journal, editors and author(s) for the time you have taken to give your valuable input to the article.