Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions, and through editorial communication with authors, it can also help authors improve their papers.

Appropriateness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a rapid review is not possible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Objectivity Standards: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Confidentiality: Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. They should not be shown or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or any other relationship or connection with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper.

Source Acknowledgment: Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that observations, derivations, or arguments have been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also alert the editor if there is substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they are personally aware of.