Reviewers are responsible for compliance with the following requirements:
4.1. Consider your work with the manuscript as confidential. If the reviewer consults with colleagues about the peer-reviewed manuscript, he must inform the editor about it.
4.2. To return or destroy the manuscript and inform the editor that the reviewer considers himself not enough qualified to review it or can not review the manuscript within the allotted time.
4.3. Make an objective judgment about the manuscript under review within the allotted time. The reviewer should not state any critical comments of a personal nature in his review.
4.4. Return the manuscript to the editor without review if there is a conflict of interest. In particular, the reviewer should not review the manuscripts if the author or co-author is the person with whom the reviewer is in close personal or professional relations, if there can be justified doubts that these relations can influence to the reviewer‘s conclusion.
4.5. Explain your judgment about the manuscript under review and reinforce your judgment so that the editors and authors can understand considerations on the basis of what these judgments were made and could argue an already published article if necessary.
4.6. Inform the editor about any similarity between the peer-reviewed manuscript and another article published or being considered in another journal.
4.7. Ensure the confidentiality of any unpublished data, its interpretation or other information contained in the article, and do not use the information contained in the peer-reviewed unpublished work in its own studies.
4.8. It is urgent to notify the editor that the manuscript in question contains borrowed materials or falsified data within his knowledge.
4.9. Do not keep copies and copy the peer-reviewed manuscripts in any form, in order to avoid violating the requirements of the copyrights regulating documents.
4.10. Report all cases of conflict of interest that may arise.
