1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

- Reviewers must have expertise in the same or closely related field as the submitted manuscript, with the ability to assess the quality of the manuscript within the specified time.

- Reviewers are responsible for objectively and honestly evaluating the scientific content of the manuscript and completing the task according to the Journal's requirements.

- The review period should not exceed 30 days from the time the reviewer receives the manuscript.

- Reviewers are compensated according to the internal financial regulations of Dong Thap University.

- If a reviewer submits feedback for a manuscript late more than 2 times per article, or if the review lacks objectivity and contains errors, the Editorial Board will not continue to invite the reviewer.

- Reviewers carry out the review process following the detailed guidelines provided here.


2. Manuscript Review Process

- For a manuscript evaluation process, the Editorial Board member decides to invite a reviewer to meet the specified requirements.

- Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the established standards and timeframe. Provide opinions on the quality of the manuscript, including:

+ Option 1: The article is accepted for publication and does not require any revisions or supplements.

+ Option 2: The article is conditionally accepted for publication, contingent upon making revisions and supplements as requested by the reviewer.

+ Option 3: The article needs to be revised, supplemented, and resubmitted to the Journal for a second round of review.

+ Option 4: The article is not accepted for publication.

- Based on the reviewer's feedback and the personal evaluation of the Editorial Board member, the Editorial Board member makes a decision among the options. The decision is not necessarily required to align with the reviewer's recommendation.

- The Editorial Board member provides feedback on the results of the manuscript review to the author, along with the feedbacks from the reviewers and the Editorial Board member (if any). In cases where the decision falls under Option 2 or Option 3, the Editorial Board member needs to specify a suitable period for the author to make revisions and supplements as requested. However, this period should not exceed 90 days in any case, unless approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

- The author proceeds to edit and revise the manuscript according to the requests of the reviewer and the Editorial Board member. The author is required to provide a response explaining the revisions made to the manuscript for the reviewer(s) and the Editorial Board member(s) (if applicable). This response should clearly outline the content of the paper that has been edited and revised as the requests, as well as any content that the author wishes to retain, accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for retaining this content.

- In the case of Option 2, the Editorial Board member, based on the author's feedback, makes a decision to either accept the paper or request further revisions and improvements from the author.

- In the case of Option 3, the Editorial Board member, based on the author's feedback, selects one of the following options:

   + The Editorial Board member assesses that the paper has been adequately edited and revised, makes a decision to accept or reject the paper, or requests the author to continue editing and improving the paper.

+ The Editorial Board member submits the edited and revised manuscript along with the author's feedback to the first reviewer for reassessment. The peer-review process restarts from the beginning.

+ The Editorial Board member submits the edited and revised manuscript to a different reviewer for reassessment. The peer-review process restarts from the beginning.

- All articles that have completed the peer-review process and have been accepted for publication will undergo the editorial process before being published. The Secretariat board is responsible for organizing the editing and publishing of the Journal.