The foundation of any successful publication rests on the shoulders of its peer reviewers. Our gratitude goes out to the many scholars who spend many hours reviewing submissions to FMDB journals. The role of the reviewer is to critically examine the contents of a submitted manuscript and provide the authors with useful, detailed, and helpful comments. At least two reviewers look over our articles and provide feedback on whether or not they think the work is ready for publication, needs significant adjustments, or should be tossed out altogether.

First, You Should Review
Once you receive a manuscript for evaluation, keep the following in mind:

• Check to see if the manuscript fits your areas of expertise.
• Can you give the article a thorough review?
• Do any of the authors have competing interests?
• Do you have an article on this subject in the works?
• You can ask to take over the review process from the Editorial System if you are confident in your ability to fairly assess the assigned article.

Peer Review Process
After reading the article, here are some things to bear in mind for your critique:

Confidentiality
The files FMDB Publications has supplied you are highly confidential because of your role as a representative for the company. Any documents or information obtained during your time as a reviewer must remain confidential until given the green light by the Editorial Board. You must first consult with a Managing Editor if you wish to include a co-worker in the reviewing process. Reviewers should exercise extreme caution when considering potential new lines of inquiry, and they should under no circumstances incorporate previously unpublished research findings or ideas into their own publications.

Analyzed Promptly
Time is needed for a good and effective evaluation procedure. We ask that reviewers provide their feedback within 4–5 weeks, as authors are eager to hear the results of the evaluation. Please let the Editorial Office know within 10 days if you think the piece needs further reading.

Ethics
Reviewers also need to think about whether or not the piece they are evaluating has any ethical problems. Please notify the Editors if you believe that any of the article's claims or citations are plagiarised. Also, make sure the piece is founded on facts, not just the author's opinions or agenda.

Structure
Manuscripts are only as good as their structure and content. This is where the reviewer's attention should be focused, as the quality of the research is where the report's emphasis should be placed. The following aspects of a document are especially important for reviewers to consider:

Uniqueness and Extent

• Is this a fresh approach to a problem that needs to be studied?
• Is there anything written about this, and does it pertain to the journal's focus?
• Is there any literature on this topic already?
• If that's the case, do we need to do any additional studies?
• Do you think this article would add anything to the journal or interest any readers?
• Is there a lot of curiosity about this topic?

Title

• Does the title of the article adequately describe its function?
• Does it need to be shortened?

Abstract
Is the abstract an accurate summary of the paper? Ask yourself if you could read and understand the abstract if it were written. May you offer any recommendations for how we can enhance this?

Introduction
Do the authors give enough context for the issue and why they wrote this article? Can you tell what the authors' goals were by reading this section? The article's beginning should include a comprehensive summary of the entire piece, from the suggested experiment through the research methodology to the outcomes.

Substances and Techniques

• Are the quantities, tools, and materials properly outlined?
• Can you describe your study's sample data and methodology?
• Can the research be reproduced using the data provided?
• Have the authors taken the right approach?
• Do they give enough justification for their method?
• Is there any way to get more information on the study and experiment?

Tables and Figures

• Is the quality and originality of the tables and figures used in the document consistently high?
• Are they a helpful addition to the study?
• Do they get the right kind of treatment in the text?

Grammar

• Is the manuscript written in clear, appropriate English?
• Should the authors make use of an English Language Service to ensure that their work is readily accessible to a wider audience?
• Indicate any small errors in language or punctuation that the authors should fix.

Results

• Is it easy to interpret the findings?
• The question is whether or not the authors present reliable findings.
• Does each conclusion have sufficient supporting evidence?

Conclusion

• How sound are the study's findings and methodology?
• Is there sufficient evidence in the study to support the authors' findings?
• To what extent have the authors of this study emphasised its potential relevance and applications?
• Can anything be improved upon further?
• Have the authors explained why their findings are important?

Formatting
Reviewers shouldn't base their decision solely on the article's formatting, but it is a crucial factor. If a work is approved, the FMDB group will reformat it to fit our standards. The following considerations are essential.

• Can the paper be found online in the journal's Instructions for Authors?
• Do you have appropriate titles for each text, table, and figure?

Final Recommendation
After careful consideration, you may send your review report to the Editorial Board.

Review Decision
You can choose from the following three alternatives when making a Review Decision:

Accept: As it stands, the work meets all requirements for publication and should be considered for publication without further revision. To make your case effectively, you must give convincing justifications.

Accept with minor revision: The work has strong argumentation, addresses a significant problem, and deserves publication consideration. Several concerns have been raised that the writers need to resolve. The submission needs to be adjusted so that it may be published in the journal of choice.

Accept with major revision: The study provides good arguments, addresses a serious problem, and should be published. The writers must resolve several issues. The contribution needs to be revised for the journal of choice.

Revise and Resubmit: Strong arguments, attention to a serious subject, and publication-worthy work are all hallmarks of this submission, which we accept with modest revisions. Numerous questions have been raised, all of which the authors should answer. The submission must be revised in order to meet the standards of the target journal.

Reject: As it stands, the manuscript is not ready for publication and should not be considered for publication. If you want authors to revise their work for the better, you need to provide them a good justification for your decision.

Review Format
Please write your comments in accordance with the journal's Evaluation Report once you have made your final judgement on the article.
Responses to the aforementioned questions can be included in your overall impressions and comments on the work. Your choice can be defended by offering an explanation.
The most important component of the evaluation form is the space provided for ideas. All the comments you offer for the authors on how to improve the manuscript so that it is publication-ready should be laid out clearly. Put all of your suggestions and edits here, and don't sprinkle them over the rest of the document. If you want to help the authors improve their manuscript, you can provide them a checklist.

Once you have finished your Review,
After you have finished reviewing the manuscript, please send in your comments using our online editorial system at http://testing.fmdbpub.com/user/front/login

If you have asked for changes to be made to the article, the writers will make those changes based on your feedback and resubmit it for a second round of review. Then you can see if the authors have answered your questions to your satisfaction. As long as all problems have been addressed and the article is ready for publication, you can start the procedure again.