Dear Reviewer, your review will help the editor to decide whether the submitted manuscript is suitable for the publication or not. Your final opinion and comments are most important for a decision of the paper. Your review decision should not include any personal details of you.

To maintain the integrity of our double-blind review policy, you must follow the instructions below to ensure that your review is completely anonymous.

1. We ask the reviewers through email to confirm whether they are agreed to review or not. The email contains the title and abstract of the paper.

2. After confirmation of the review, you will receive a blinded manuscript, reviewer form and Plagiarism report checked by iThenticate software.

3. The reviewer form contains two parts (A and B). Part A have the details of Reviewer's name, title of the paper, date sent for review and expected time for the review.

4. Part B contains the four sections named Comments per Section of Manuscript, please rate the following: (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = poor), Recommendation: (Kindly Mark with an X) and Additional Comments.

5. You must mark the recommendation section as- Accept as it is, Requires Minor Corrections, Requires Moderate Revision, Requires Major Revision, Submit to Another Publication, and Reject on Grounds of (be specific).

6. After you write your review, you can email the file. You must also confirm whether you want to review the revised manuscript or not.

7. Please ensure that your review addresses the following points:

• Is the submission original?
• Does it help to expand or further research in this subject area?
• Is the paper well integrated and up to date with the existing body of literature?
• Is the paper complete? What would make the paper stronger if certain literature or data were included?
• Should it be shortened? If so, where, and why?
• Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
• Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
• Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
• Is the paper likely to be of sufficient interest to be cited by other researchers?
• Are the methods, analysis, and conclusions robust and to a high standard?

Note: If you have any questions about the review process or you are new to this page and want to be a part of the journal as a reviewer, kindly send your query to: editor@phytopharmajournal.com