Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author who may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research report in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. 

Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement observation, derivation, or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. 

A reviewer should also call the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewers must also disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to patents. Reviewers are expected to recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts if they have a significant conflict of interest related to patents disclosed in the manuscript.