The reviewer receives an invitation from the Editorial Office containing information about the manuscript, including its title, abstract, subject area, and review deadline. The reviewer should examine the information provided before deciding whether to participate.

• Read the manuscript title and abstract carefully.
• Determine whether the subject is within the reviewer's expertise.
• Consider whether sufficient time is available to complete the review.
• Check whether any circumstances could affect independent judgment.

Before accepting the assignment, the reviewer must determine whether a conflict of interest exists. A conflict may arise from personal relationships, professional collaboration, institutional relationships, financial interests, direct competition, or other circumstances that could reasonably affect impartiality.

Once the reviewer accepts the invitation, the manuscript becomes part of the reviewer's confidential review assignment. The reviewer should carefully observe the deadline communicated by the Editorial Office and notify the journal promptly if additional time is required.

• Access the manuscript only through the authorized journal system.
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review.
• Do not share the manuscript with unauthorized persons.
• Complete the evaluation within the agreed timeframe.

The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the journal's review criteria. The assessment should cover the overall scientific quality of the work as well as the consistency between the research problem, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusion.

• Relevance and timeliness of the research topic.
• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Clarity of research objectives and research gap.
• Technical content and scientific rigor.
• Appropriateness of methodology and analysis.
• Accuracy and adequacy of results.
• Quality and depth of discussion.
• Validity of conclusions.
• Quality and relevance of references.
• Clarity of tables, figures, equations, and technical explanations.

The reviewer should prepare a structured review report containing clear and constructive comments. The report should help the authors understand the issues that need attention while providing the Editor with sufficient information to make an informed editorial decision.

• Begin with an overall assessment of the manuscript.
• Identify major scientific or methodological concerns.
• Identify minor issues separately.
• Provide specific explanations for each important criticism.
• Suggest improvements where appropriate.
• Distinguish factual or methodological concerns from stylistic preferences.
• Avoid personal or offensive comments.
• Ensure that the written comments support the final recommendation.

The completed review should be submitted through the journal's designated online review system before the stated deadline. Reviewers should ensure that all required evaluation fields, comments, and recommendations have been completed before submitting the review.

The reviewer provides a recommendation based on the overall quality of the manuscript. The recommendation should be supported by the detailed comments and should reflect the seriousness of the issues identified.

The Editorial Office considers the reviewer reports together with the manuscript and other relevant editorial information. The reviewer's recommendation is an important part of the editorial assessment but does not by itself determine the final editorial decision.

The Editor may request clarification, additional review, or another evaluation when necessary to ensure that the editorial decision is appropriately supported.

When a revised manuscript is returned for further evaluation, the reviewer may be invited to assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous review comments. The second review should focus particularly on the revisions and responses provided by the authors.

• Check whether major concerns have been addressed.
• Evaluate whether methodological corrections are adequate.
• Assess whether new changes introduce additional problems.
• Review the authors' responses to previous comments.
• Provide additional comments only when scientifically necessary.

The reviewer process is considered complete after the review report and recommendation have been submitted and no further evaluation is requested by the Editorial Office. Reviewers should continue to maintain confidentiality and should not disclose information about the manuscript, authors, review reports, or editorial decision.