Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal Of Science

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE (hereinafter referred to as the Journal) has adopted a double-blind review policy. The peer-review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; the identities of reviewers are not released. All information will be exchanged the Journal online system, if any.Reviewer selection is based on many factors: expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our own previous experience of that reviewer. The authors are welcome to suggest suitable reviewers. The Journal appreciates the time that the reviewers devote to assessing the submitted manuscripts and helping to ensure publishing only material of the highest quality. The Journal tries to avoid the reviewers who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors or competing financial and/or non-financial interests concerning the work described. The Journal encourages the reviewers to inform about anything that might affect their review.Only the manuscripts that seem qualified and meet the editorial screening criteria are sent for formal review. The Journal requests the reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system.Reviewers are responsible for strictly maintaining the confidentiality of all details of the peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers may not share any information with anyone or contact the author directly without consulting with the Journal.When the reviewers agree to access the manuscripts, they need to make sure: (1) The appropriate relation between the manuscript’s content and the reviewer’s area of expertise; (2) The compliance with the Journal’s policies; (3) The availability to assess the manuscript within the requested time (maximum 20 days for the first round and 07 days for second round); (4) The potential conflicts of interest (any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in relation to the manuscripts). Depending on the above conditions’ satisfaction and other personal reasons, the experts may choose to accept or decline the invitation to review the submitted manuscript.Based on the Review Form provided by the Journal, the reviewers will objectively, academically, freely, and confidentially give their comments/advice about the manuscript. Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action. The recommendations should instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. After review, the reviewer will conclude accepting, rejecting, or requesting the modifications from the author. After receiving the review results, the Journal might go back to the reviewers for further recommendations or provide follow-up advice when having a solid scientific case for reconsideration. Reviewers are expected to acknowledge and accept the recommendations provided by the editor as well as the editor-in-chief’s approval results; however, it’s important to note that the final decision, as approved by the editor-in-chief, may differ from the results of the reviews.