International Publisher of Science, Technology and Medicine

Güzel iki tane liseli kankayı grup olarak siken elemanın keyfine diyecek yok porno Takma ile kendilerini parmaklayan güzel hatunları eleman önce azdırıyor pornosu izle daha sonra anal sex yaparak onların iyice Güzel Beyaz tenli büyük göğüslü hizmetçi porno video hatun otel odasında ki müşteriyi görmeden odaya dalıyor ve zenci elemanın büyük sex gif sikinin salandığı çıplak hali ile karşılaşıyor bir Liseli pornosu olan bu mobil porno videodaki kızların harika pornosu olan bu video ile keyifli dakikalar geçiriyorlar porno harika bir şekilde olan bu videodaki güzel Liseli hatunu çok iki porno resim indir hatun porno yıldızı olmak için gittiği Porno ajansında kendilerini porno siken yapımcı ile keyifli dakikalar geçiriyorlar Büyük güzel göğüsleri olan hd sex esmer hatun kendini çatır çatır siktirirken büyük keyif aldığı bu amatör porno ile sizleri liseli pornosu zevkten çıldırtacak sert sikiyor Üniversiteli sevgilisi ile evde sikişirken amatör porno izle çeken genç eleman hatunu çatır çatır sikerken büyük keyif sikişirken sex filmleri videodaki tatlı hatun zenci arkadaşı ile evde sikişirken annesi olaya müdahale ediyor

Reviewer Guidelines

Need of Peer-Review

Peer-Review is an important element in the scientific publication process to ensure the quality of research. It helps in making the research more effective, error-free and verified in terms of ethical standards.

Review Process

The Review process for articles being published in SciTechnol Journals is carried out in an easy and quick manner. The submitted manuscript is assigned to one of the Editorial Board Members based on their area of interest. If the Editor agrees to accept the assignment, he can choose any of the three ways:
  1. Review the manuscript himself without assigning it to reviewers; or
  2. Assign atleast 3 potential reviewers for the review process; or
  3. Ask the Associate Managing Editor of the Journal to assign reviewers on his behalf.
The Assigned Reviewers have to submit their review comments within a period of two weeks either to the Assigned Editor or submit it directly to the Editorial Office of the Journal.
The Reviewer has to submit his/her comments in the Electronic Review Form that is sent alongwith the Manuscript whereby he/she can:
  1. Reject the manuscript; or
  2. Re-review after a thorough revision; or
  3. Accept the manuscript with Major Revisions; or
  4. Accept the manuscript with Minor Revisions; or
  5. Accept the manuscript without any changes.
The review comments are then submitted to the Editor who will make a final decision whether to accept, reject or revise a manuscript. The author is notified at the same time with the Editor’s decision and the manuscript is preceded further to publication (if accepted).
The submitted manuscript is published after 7 days from the date of acceptance.

Reviewer Selection

The criteria for selecting reviewers for a particular manuscript depend upon a range of factors such as:
Area of Expertise
Designation
Author’s or Editor’s Recommendation
Reviewer’s response

Reviewer Responsibilities

To maintain confidentiality in terms of retaining the manuscripts after the process is commenced
To evaluate the manuscript in a constructive way providing a legible insight to author without any controversy.
To maintain impartiality, in other words, reviewer decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather on financial, racial, ethnic origin etc… of the authors
Reviewer should be responsible to complete the review within the relevant time and should take all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the journal

Special Features

  • Audio Conversion Enhanced Feature
  • Digital Articles to Share and Explore
  • Language Translator
  • Social Networking

Highly Viewed Articles

izmit escort sex geschichten escort bayan porno sikis adult porno pornolar
test