Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guideline

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are reviewed by a single reviewer with relevant expertise. The reviewer is responsible for evaluating the quality of the manuscript and providing a recommendation to the editor regarding whether the manuscript should be accepted, accepted with revisions, or rejected.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer
Peer reviewers evaluate submitted manuscripts by critically examining their content within their area of expertise and offering fair, constructive, and unbiased feedback to the authors. Their role includes identifying both the strengths and limitations of the paper, recommending improvements to enhance its quality and robustness, and assessing the manuscript’s relevance, originality, and scientific credibility.

Before proceeding with the review, please review the following guidelines:

  • Does the manuscript fall within your area of expertise? If you receive a submission that does not align with your knowledge or experience, please inform the editor promptly and suggest a suitable alternative reviewer.
  • Are you able to complete the review within the required timeframe? The review should be finished within 1-2 weeks. If you accept the invitation but need additional time, notify the editor as soon as possible or recommend another reviewer
  • Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? A conflict of interest does not automatically disqualify you from serving as a reviewer; however, all potential conflicts must be disclosed to the editor before beginning the review. If you are uncertain whether a conflict exists, please contact the editorial office for clarification.

 

Review Process
When evaluating the manuscript, please pay attention to the following aspects:

  • Title: Does it accurately and clearly represent the content of the article?
  • Abstract: Does it appropriately summarize and reflect the main elements of the manuscript?
  • Introduction: Does it clearly present the issue being addressed and accurately describe the topic proposed by the author? The introduction should provide relevant background, outline the research context, and explain the purpose of the study. It should also describe the hypotheses, methods, and key findings or points to be discussed, where applicable.

 

Content of the Article

  • Originality and suitability: Are there indications of plagiarism exceeding 25% in this manuscript? A brief literature check using databases such as Sinta or Scopus may be conducted to identify similarities with previously published work.
  • Prior research: If similar studies have been conducted by other authors, does the manuscript still offer sufficient value to merit publication?
  • Novelty and depth: Is the article sufficiently current, thorough, and engaging to be considered for publication?
  • Contribution to knowledge: Does the study add meaningful insights or advance understanding in its field?
  • Journal standards: Does the manuscript comply with the journal’s formatting, ethical, and academic requirements?
  • Scope: Is the content aligned with the aims and scope of the journal?

 

Method
Comprehensive and perfect:

  • Theoretical framework: Are the theories or references used appropriate and relevant to the study?
  • Study design: Is the exposure or study design suitable for addressing the research question?
  • Methodological innovation: Are any new methods introduced, and if so, are they explained in sufficient detail?
  • Reproducibility: Is sufficient methodological detail provided to allow the study to be replicated?
  • Procedures: Does the article clearly describe the procedures followed?
  • Data collection: Does the author clearly and accurately explain how the data were collected? Does the study clearly state the type of data collected and accurately describe the measurement methods?
  • Sampling: Is the sampling method appropriate and adequately justified?
  • Tools and materials: Are the instruments, tools, and materials used in the study clearly and adequately described?

 

Tables and Figures
Are the data presented consistent with the explanations provided and easy for readers to understand?

Results:
This section should present the research findings clearly and in a logical order. Reviewers should assess whether appropriate analytical methods have been applied, including the correct use of statistical tools. If more suitable statistical analyses are available, these should be recommended. Interpretation of the results should not be included in this section.


Discussion and Conclusion:

  • Are the claims presented in this section adequately supported by the results and logically justified?
  • Does the author relate and compare the study findings with those of previous research?
  • Do the results challenge or contradict existing theories?
  • Does the conclusion outline directions or recommendations for future, improved scientific research?

 

Writing Styles

  • Authors should present a critical and systematic review of the literature relevant to the research topic.
  • The review should maintain a clear focus on a single, well-defined subject.
  • The manuscript must be written in English using clear, accurate, and coherent grammar
  • The content should be easy to understand.
  • The writing should be engaging and enjoyable to read.

 

Reference

  • Do the cited sources primarily consist of up-to-date and relevant publications, and is the level of self-citation appropriate?

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter