Manuscripts are reviewed through a double-blind process, Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following elements:

ORIGINALITY

Does the article provide an innovative contribution to the subject? Are new problems discussed, contributing to its uniqueness and suitability for publication?

SIGNIFICANCE

Do the article’s findings contribute meaningfully to the field? Does the article address important issues or present alternative points of view?

RELEVANCE

Does the article present the information that is relevant to the author’s area of research?

CONTENT PRESENTATION

Is the article logically structured, including the research objectives, methods & materials, results & discussions, summary of findings and the significance of the research? Are the tables and figures used appropriately to illustrate, the discussed subjects?

WRITING STYLE

Is the article written with correct grammar, making it easy to read and understand for the audience?

RECOMMENDATIONS

The reviewers' recommendations must be based on their evaluation as outlined below :

Accept: The article is accepted for publication in its current form.

Minor Revisions: The article requires minor revisions to improve the quality and accuracy of the research.

Major Revisions: The article has potential, but significant revisions are required to address the quality concerns and enhance the overall research.

Reject: This article is not suitable for publication due to fundamental or ethical concerns.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO EDITOR/S

Reviewers provide private feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, as well as its suitability for publication. These confidential comments assist editors in the final decision-making process.