The manuscript was assigned to an editor who chose at least two reviewers to review. Within one week of the e-mail invitation, the reviewer should determine whether the subject is within the scope of the journal and his/her field of expertise, and decide whether to act as a reviewer by clicking on the pending review title. After one week, the editors may not have considered the reviewers’ preferences. Reviewers can intimate their acceptance and rejection of the invitation. The assigned reviewers had four weeks to submit their objective, independent, and scientific reviews. After four weeks, the editors did not consider the reviewers’ suggestions.

Remarks are to be made confidentially and can advise/suggest the acceptance, rejection, or modification of the manuscript to the editor. These suggestions should be included in scientific explanations. The reviewer should contact the editor if there are any conflicts of interest. On this basis, the reviewer can either extend or decline to review the assignment. Reviewers are obligated to explain any possible conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, counseling, or other). If there are no conflicts of interest in the study, they must be declared. We hereby request that the reviewers not share any information regarding the manuscript for their purpose. Offensive remarks are unacceptable, and criticism should be dispassionately presented. In cases of unsuitable reviewer statements, the editor(s) can make changes to the reviewers’ comments. The final decision regarding acceptance, rejection, or modification depended entirely on the editor.