Introduction

The review process plays a crucial role in the article publication process. It assists editors in making decisions regarding an article and provides authors with an opportunity to enhance their manuscript.
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should confirm the following:

The manuscript aligns with their area of expertise.
They can allocate sufficient time to perform a thorough assessment of the manuscript.

Fairness

Reviews must be characterized by honesty and objectivity and should not be influenced by factors such as:

The manuscript's origin
The author's religious, political, or cultural standpoint
The author's gender, race, ethnicity, or nationality

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are provided to reviewers in a confidential manner, entrusted solely for the purpose of rigorous evaluation. Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the review process, ensuring that all information regarding the manuscript and the review procedure remains confidential both during and after the assessment.
“Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others”. COPE

Timeliness

Reviewers should only agree to evaluate a manuscript if they are certain they can allocate sufficient time for the review process. Consequently, reviewers should aim to assess and return manuscripts promptly.

Recommendations

Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations for the manuscript:

Accept
Requires minor revisions
Requires significant revision
Reject

These recommendations must be supported by substantiated arguments and evidence from the manuscript's content.
You can access fundamental training for reviewer responsibilities and a comprehensive manual on how to review a manuscript on the journal's website using the following link.

Review Reports

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following aspects:

Originality
Contribution to the field
Technical quality
Clarity of presentation
Depth of research

Reviewers should also verify that the author(s) have adhered to the author guidelines, editorial policies, and publication ethics.
The review report should be accurate, objective, constructive, and free of ambiguity. Comments should be substantiated by facts and reasoned arguments related to the manuscript's content.
Reviewers are discouraged from rewriting the manuscript but should instead provide necessary corrections and suggestions for improvement.

Conflict of Interest

“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”. WAME
“Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. ICMJE