Reviewer Guidelines

• We ensure that the peer-review process is double blinded so that it shall remain fair and unbiased.
• We are very grateful that we express our sincere gratitude to all our reviewers who put their valuable effort and time in evaluating the manuscripts and support us during this journey to convert the preliminary manuscript into a suitable standard publication. It enhances the presentation quality and scientific merit for a better comprehension with a wide range of followers.
• Based on the author’s suggestion and the bibliographical knowledge, the potential and active reviewers are identified.
• The evaluations and the comments of the reviewers plays an important role in taking the final decision upon the manuscripts in consultation with the editors on considering multiple contributing factors such that the relevance and impact of the research work. For such condition we adhere to cope with the guidelines and the reviewers can decline to comment if they find any conflict of interest with the manuscript.
• It is important to understand that the reviewers must be in contact with the assigned editor for sensitive issues such as conflict of interest, plagiarism and published data. The manuscript having contents with recommendations and critical evaluations needs to be submitted to both the editor and the author.
• Since the unpublished manuscripts are classified on our natural state, so the process of review and recommendation remains confidential. The review needs to be very objective in nature and mainly to focus on improving the scientific merit of the manuscript.
• Review comments with partial criticism are strictly prohibited. It shall contain supporting references and maintain the sufficient clarity while pointing out the strength, weakness, relevance and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the presentation.
• Finally it is necessary to mention the extent of suitability of the publication of manuscript. In addition to the authors, the editor can forward the review comments to other potential reviewers. Unpublished manuscript shall not be cited by the reviewer.

The following points represent a standard review process ensuring conformation.

1. The title & content shall be within the scope of the journal.
2. Providing relevant information for a wider network of readers within the journal preview.
3. All the sections such as title, abstract, key words, methods and conclusions within the manuscript are consistent with the objective of the paper. The included controls are rational and adequate in the experimental work.
4. Without distractions and deviations, the writing is easy to comprehend.
5. The methodology can be repeated by another researcher since it is clear and easy.
6. The methodology is appropriate and applicable when it has consent of ethical approvals. The statistical methods and analytical are appropriate which is relevant to the study.
7. The comments with suggestions can be made for expanding, considering, merging or deleting the content with regard to the length of the manuscript.

Editors’ Role:

• The editor of a journal holds a vital position taking important editorial decisions on all peer-reviewed articles submitted for publication.
• The editor should maintain the transparency of the academic research and record, preclude professional needs from cooperating with ethical standards, and always be willing to publish retractions, rectifications, and erratum when required.
• The editor should assess manuscripts for their scientific quality and intellectual content, free from any biased decisions based on discrimination of race, gender, geographical origin, or religion of the author(s). The editor should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on their academic merit and free of any commercial or self-interests.
• The editor should not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts before publication of the said manuscript.
• Promoting research rectitude must be preserved. If at any stage the publisher suspects any kind of misconduct in research, it should be investigated promptly and in detail with suitable authority. Furthermore if any suspicious act is observed in the peer review, it should be resolved with diligence.

Reviewers’ Role:

• Providing a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the work.
• Indicating whether the writing is relevant, concise, and clear and evaluating the originality as well as scientific accuracy.
• Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.
• Notifying the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists.
• Notifying the journal editor of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal and/or human subjects or any considerable similarity between a previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.

Authors’ Role:

• All the work reported in the manuscript must be original and free from any kind of plagiarism.
• The work should not have been published elsewhere or submitted to any other journal(s) at the time of submission to Bentham Open.
• Any potential conflict of interest must be clearly acknowledged.
• Proper acknowledgements to other work referred/cited (of any individual, company or institution) must be given. Permission must be obtained for any content used from other sources.

• Only those who have made any substantial contribution to the interpretation or composition of the submitted work should be listed as ‘Authors’. While other contributors should be mentioned as ‘co-authors’