1. Peer-reviewers review manuscripts in accordance with their scientific background. If the manuscript does not comply with peer-reviewers proficiency, the peer reviewer is entitled to refuse to review a manuscript and transfer it to other reviewers who are more competent;
2. The review process uses a double-blind review, i.e. the reviewer does not know the identity of the author and vice versa;
3. The process of reviewing one manuscript is done by at least two reviewers and steps of the process follow the E-Journal system;
4. Reviewers review the manuscript within a maximum period of 6 weeks after the manuscript is assigned to review. The review process is based on the substance (quality) of the manuscript, among others,

• to review whether the title, background, questions, objective, theory, methods, discussion, and conclusion in accord to each other;
• to review the clarity of images and tables;
• to review the updated references used in the manuscript;
• to review the validity of facts;
• to evaluate the contents of manuscript;
• to review the originality of information;
• to review whether the manuscript was published elsewhere
• to review the comprehensiveness of the author's knowledge

Advanced

1. If the review of the manuscript has not been completed within 6 weeks, the reviewer must confirm to the Editor in Chief for the delay;
2. During the review process, the reviewer provides assessments by filling in a review form/checklist available online. If it is difficult to access the website, reviewers can manually fill in the form/checklist in MS. Word format sent by a Section Editor or the Secretariat;
3. The reviewed manuscript is returned to the corresponding Section Editor or the Secretariat;
4. Reviewers make the decision on the reviewed manuscript:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Resubmit for Review
• Resubmit Elsewhere
• Decline Submission
• See Comments