When reading the article, note the following:

• Quality and originality of the content,

  Does the article say something new and interesting that justifies a publication? Does this add to the body of knowledge? Is the research question important? To determine the originality and relevance of the article for the journal, it may be useful to review the article in the context of more in-depth published research and use tools such as Web of Science, Scopus, etc. Documents downloaded on site? If the search has already been processed, send all relevant references to the publisher.

• Layout and format

  Authors must fully comply with the editorial guidelines of the journal, particularly with regard to the presentation of manuscripts. If the author has clearly not submitted the article in accordance with these guidelines and the publisher has not already highlighted it in the invitation to the review, you must report it to the publisher or include it in your review. If the document is particularly original or interesting, the publisher may decide not to consider formatting issues in the peer review process and ask the author to process them shortly before they are accepted. In other cases, the publisher may ask the author to restructure the document before further processing.

• Title: Does it clearly describe the manuscript / article? Does it contain key words (think about how to search for research articles) and do you demonstrate the importance of research? Does this make sense?
• Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
• Introduction: Describes what exactly the author wanted to achieve and clearly identifies the problem under investigation. Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research findings to provide context and explain what results from other authors, if any, are being questioned or expanded. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis and the configuration or the general experimental method.
• Method: does the author explain exactly how the data was collected? Is the design adapted to answer the question? Is there enough information to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures used? Are they arranged in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was sampling appropriate? Have devices and materials been adequately described? Does the article specify what type of data has been recorded? Has the author described the measurements exactly?
• Results: the author must explain in words what he discovered during his research. This should be clear and logical. You must check if the corresponding analysis has been done. Are the statistics correct? If you are unfamiliar with the statistics, please inform the publisher when submitting your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
• Conclusion / Discussion: Are the statements in this section appropriate and supported by the results? Do the results meet the expectations of the author? Do the conclusions agree with the other elements of the document? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the author explain how research contributed to the knowledge base?
• Graphics (images, images) and tables: if applicable, check the content and send suggestions for improvement, if possible. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are they an important part of the manuscript? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Are they presented consistently?
• Language: Does the quality of English make it difficult to understand the argument of the author? If this is the case, you do not need to correct English, but you should mention it in your comment. In extreme cases where an interesting or original contribution is compromised by a poor quality of expression, you can alert the publisher who can then point to sub-editing services.
• Scope - Does the article meet the objectives and scope of the journal?

Please prepare detailed comments for the author (s). Remember that the journal sends the entire section to the authors. It is important to be polite when making comments that support your recommendation, even if you have to criticize the manuscript. In your comments to the authors, try to be as complete, specific and constructive as possible. Your comments should help the author (s) to improve the manuscript, even if you feel that the manuscript does not deserve to be published in the journal.

When writing your comments, please include the comment section for editors only, and the comment section, which can be returned to the author (s). Feel free to contact the recipient publisher if you have any questions or concerns.

• Accept
• Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions
• Reject

Contributing to Editorial Decisions - The peer review process helps the publisher and editors to make editorial decisions and can also help the author improve the publication.

Timeliness - Any selected adjudicator who does not feel qualified to review the search results reported in a manuscript or knowing that immediate review is not possible, must inform the publisher and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality - All manuscripts submitted for review should be treated as confidential documents. They may only be disclosed or discussed with third parties with the permission of the publisher.

Reviews of objectivity standards must be conducted objectively. The author's personal criticism is inappropriate. Arbitrators must clearly express their points of view with arguments.

Source Recognition - Examiners should identify instances where relevant published articles referenced in the article have not been cited in the reference section. You must indicate whether the observations or arguments of other publications are accompanied by the source. Examiners will inform the publisher of any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript and other published articles that they personally know. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest - Inside information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal purposes. Examiners should not consider manuscripts in the event of a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships, or links to authors, companies or institutions associated with the contributions.