1. This review of the article uses a double-blind peer review.

2. Revealing whether the article has a clear, concise, and relevant composition as well as accuracy and originality, and interest for the readers.

3. Avoiding personal comments and critics

4. Preventing direct contact with the authors without the editor’s permission

5. Informing the reviewers as soon as possible if they cannot complete the reviewing process timely and offering potential peer reviewers.

6. Deciding on the scientific achievement, originality, and scope of works; showing how to improve and recommending acceptance or rejection utilizing score valuation.

7. Considering all ethical issues, such as substantial similarities among the latest article with other published articles or other journals’ articles.

8. Warning the editor on private conflict, financial, or conflict of interest issues and possible conflict existence

9. Ensuring that the article which is published in accordance with journal standards

10. Protecting the readers from wrong or falsification and unvalidated studies by others

11. Aware of failure to refer to other relevant works by other scientists.