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 more details after a reviewed article being published.
● Reviewers are prohibited to deliver an article to another one for reviewing 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 should be made through the Journal.
● Trying to report "research and publication misconduct" and submitting the related documents to the editor-in-chief.