For Reviewer

REVIEWER GUIDE

Ethical Principles:

Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Please do not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript without authorization.

Conflict of Interest: Please decline the invitation to review if a conflict of interest exists (e.g., having a collaborative, financial, or personal relationship with the author(s)).

Objectivity: Provide an assessment that is objective, constructive, and free from personal bias or institutional prejudice.

Key Aspects of Manuscript Evaluation

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following points:

Title & Abstract

Does the title accurately and concisely describe the content of the article?

Does the abstract clearly present the objectives, methodology, key findings, and conclusions?

Are the keywords relevant?

Introduction

Is the background of the problem and the urgency of the research well-explained?

Are the literature review/novelty and the research gap clearly articulated?

Are the research objectives or hypotheses stated in detail?

Research Methods

Are the design, population/sample, instruments, and data analysis techniques described in sufficient detail to allow for replication?

Is the methodological approach appropriate for addressing the research questions?

Have ethical considerations (where relevant) been addressed?

Results & Discussion

Is the presentation of data/results clear, logical, and supported by relevant tables or figures?

Does the discussion provide an in-depth interpretation of the results and compare them with previous research?

Are the key findings explained, rather than simply restating the data presented in tables or graphs?

Conclusion & Implications

Does the conclusion directly address the research questions or objectives?

Have the authors acknowledged the study's limitations and provided suggestions for future research?

Are there any theoretical or practical implications arising from the research findings?

References & Language

Is the bibliography up-to-date (mostly from the last 5–10 years) and relevant?

 Do the citation format and bibliography adhere to the journal’s author guidelines?

Are the writing style, grammar, and technical terminology consistent with academic standards?

Guidelines for Preparing Notes/Comments

Please organize your feedback into two sections:

1. Confidential Comments to the Editor:

 A brief summary of the primary reasons for your recommendation, particularly if there are any concerns regarding ethical misconduct (such as plagiarism or data manipulation).

2. Comments to the Author:

Strengths of the Manuscript: Acknowledge the strong aspects of the research.

Major Comments: Address significant issues—such as methodological flaws, insufficient data, or analytical shortcomings—that affect the validity of the results.  Minor Comments: Typos, reference formatting, sentence clarity, or improvements to tables/figures.

Please upload the peer reviewer form:

Peer Review Form download here

Final Recommendation Categories

At the end of the review process, select one of the following recommendations:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is ready for publication without any significant revisions.

Revisions Required (Minor Revisions): The manuscript requires minor improvements (grammar, formatting, or brief additional explanations) and does not need to be re-evaluated by the reviewer.

Resubmit for Review (Major Revisions): The manuscript requires significant improvements (such as re-analysis, additional data, or restructuring of the methodology). The manuscript will undergo a second round of review once revised.

Decline Submission: The manuscript contains fatal flaws in its methodology, lacks novelty, or falls outside the journal's scope.