Double Blind Peer review helps the reviewers in settling editorial decisions, while editorial correspondences with the author may likewise help the author in enhancing the quality of the manuscript. The reviewers may not have any idea about the author's identity, as any distinguishing data will be stripped from the manuscript before review. Reviewer’s remarks to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. The names of the reviewers remain entirely confidential; with their identities known just to the Editor-In-Chief and the Managing Editor.

Any chosen referee who feels unfit to review the assigned manuscript or unfit to give an incite review ought to inform the Editor-In - Chief and the Managing Editor and excuse himself/herself from the review procedure.

Manuscript subjected to review must be dealt as confidential records. They should not be disclosed with, except the one approved by the Editor-In - Chief and the Managing Editor.

Reviews ought to be directed unbiasedly. There should be no personal feedback of the author. Reviewers should express their perspectives obviously with supporting contentions.

Reviewers ought to distinguish significant published work that has not been referred to by the authors. Any report that had been beforehand detailed somewhere else ought to be joined by the pertinent reference. A reviewer ought to likewise call to the Editor-In-Chief/Managing Editor's consideration for any significant comparability or overlap between the manuscript under review and some other published paper of which they have individual information.

Privileged data or thoughts got through double blind peer review must be kept confidential and not utilized for individual’s benefit.

Reviewers must not review manuscript in which they have conflict of interests coming about because of aggressive, communitarian, or different connections or associations with any of the authors, organizations, or institutions associated with the manuscript.