Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers are responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in areas of expertise, and then providing constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the authors of submitted articles. Reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of articles, how to improve the strength and quality of papers and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of manuscripts.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Is the article being asked to be reviewed by your expertise? If you receive a manuscript covering a topic that is not your appropriate area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Recommend alternative reviewers.
  • Do you have time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and need a longer time frame, let the editor know as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there a potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, a conflict of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before review. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Review Process

  • When reviewing articles, please consider the following:
  • Title: Does it describe the article clearly?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe the accuracy of the things conveyed by the author and clearly state the issue under consideration? Typically, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context, and describe the research findings or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. The study should explain experiments, hypotheses, and methods.

Content of the Article

To determine the originality and suitability of the journal, is there an element of plagiarism in more than 20% of the field of this paper? A quick literature search can use certain tools like Scopus to see if there are similarities from other sections.

  • If previous research has been conducted by other authors, is it still eligible for publication?
  • Is the article new, deep enough, and interesting to publish?
  • Does it contribute to knowledge?
  • Does the article comply with journal standards?
  • Scope - Does the article fit the purpose and scope of the journal?

 Method

Comprehensive and perfect:

  • Does the author accurately describe how the data was collected?
  • Was the theoretical basis or reference used appropriately for the study?
  • Is the lighting design appropriate for the answer to the question?
  • Is there enough decent information for you to replicate the research?
  • Does the article identify the following procedure?
  • Is there a new method? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in detail?
  • Is there proper sampling?
  • Have the tools and materials used been adequately described? and
  • Whether the exposure of the article describes what kind of data is recorded; Precise in describing measurements?

Result

This is where the author must explain the findings of his research. It should be laid out clearly and in a logical order. You need to consider whether the right analysis has been carried out; Use of statistical tools? If you have better statistical tools to use in this study, let them know, and their interpretation doesn't need to be included in this section.

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Are the claims in this section supported by fair and reasonably reasonable results?
  • Did the authors compare the results of the study with the previous ones?
  • Do the research results written in the article contradict previous theories?
  • Do those conclusions explain how better scientific research should be acted upon?

Tables and Figures

Is it the explanation intended by displaying data that is easy to interpret and understand by the reader?

Writing Style

  • Authors should be critical of most of the literature and a systematic review of issues, relevant to the field of study.
  • Reviews should be focused on one topic.
  • All presentations are written in good and coherent grammar.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

Things to note

Perspective, a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related focus and scope.

Originality Research

Include focus and scope 

Reference

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book Review
  • Data

Final Review

All reviews submitted by reviewers are confidential

If you would like to discuss the article with colleagues, please let the editor know

Do not contact the author directly.

Ethical issues

Plagiarism

If you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, tell the editor the details.

Scams

It is very difficult to detect fraud categories, but if you suspect the results in the article are incorrect, please notify the editor.

 

Complete the "Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendations for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and your honest feedback is greatly appreciated.

When you write a comment, please indicate the part of the comment that is intended only for the editor and the part that can be returned to the author.

Don't hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or concerns you may encounter.