Each Reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating the scientific content that falls under the interest of their research. Reviewers are requested to adhere to the COPE Guidelines and must provide honest feedback without any bias. To avoid any conflicts, JSMCentral follows a double blind peer review process, and thus the details of authors are kept anonymous. Reviewers must fairly address the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and suggest ways to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Each reviewer must follow certain aspects before they accept any submissions:

1. Does the Manuscript fall under your research interest? Please reject the assignment if you think you are not strong enough with the manuscript scope.
2. We understand that even you are busy in academic or other commencing duties, so please accept assignments only if you feel you do have time to review the manuscript. And please let the editorial office immediately know if you need additional timeline extensions and try completing within the assigned dates (with extensions if applicable).
3. Kindly inform editorial office if you have any competing conflict of interests which will help editorial office to decide if the manuscript falls under the competing conflicts.

Points to be considered while review:

JSMCentral mainly considers 6 major points while reviewing:

1. Readability: Please closely evaluate the readability and language, which is an important aspect of manuscript writing. If the language is not properly conveying the results, then it must not be encouraged to be published.
2. Originality: Plagiarism is a crime and JSMCentral strongly opposes plagiarized content. Thus kindly check the originality of the manuscript closely in order to avoid publishing of any plagiarized content.
3. Relevance: Identify if the manuscript adheres to the journal's scope and standards. Does the manuscript add any knowledge to the research community?
4. Content: See if the following areas are explained with accuracy.

a. Does the title describe the article?
b. Is the Abstract briefly explained in the summary of the manuscript submitted?
c. Introduction: Is the background of the manuscript explained in detail? Does the manuscript explain what other research has been conducted in this particular area? Are the references properly cited?
d. Materials and Methods: Kindly see that the data is mentioned without any overwriting of results. Does the experimental method are clear and they reciprocate the research performed. Also analyze if the authors are precise in their described measurement.
e. Results and Discussions: Authors must explain in detail what they have performed. If the writing is not accurate and needs further explanations, add in detail what you are expecting from the author. If possible, kindly suggest ways of improving the writing.
f. Figures and Tables: Are they appropriately labeled? Are they easy to interpret?

5. References Cited: References Cited must not be too old, and they must replicate the original article being cited.

Rules to be followed as a reviewer:

1. Do not share your reviews with any third party
2. Please do not assign to any of your colleagues, students, or any other third party.
3. Inform the editorial office of any unexpected drop to review or any delay.
4. If you would like to discuss with your professor or colleague for a better review, please let the editorial office know first.
5. If you notice any ethical concerns, please convey to the editorial office.

Post Review:

Once the review comments are submitted they shall be notified to author for changes. Revisions once submitted by the author, they shall be sent to the reviewers and Editors for the final recommendation upon acceptance.