Peer reviewers play an important role in the peer review process. Reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and responsible manner. Omniscient Pte. Ltd. offers double-blind peer review and relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them. We follow the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for peer reviewers.

Peer reviewers should adhere the following basic principles:

• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Reviewers should rate the manuscript from its originality, scientific, quality and significance, and give specific modification suggestions/comments to improve the manuscript. Finally, reviewers will provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript and indicate the reason for that recommendation.

The overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript is as follows:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted without any further changes.
Revisions Required: According to the reviewer's comments, the manuscript needs to be made with minor modifications. Authors are given one week for minor revisions.
Resubmit for Review: It requires major changes and another round of peer review. Acceptance of the manuscript will depend on revision. The author needs to provide a point-to-point response. Authors will be required to resubmit the revised paper within two weeks.
Reject: If the manuscript is of poor quality, has serious defects or cannot be accepted after modification, the manuscript is rejected.