Reviewer Guidelines

Presentation

• Does the paper present a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly communicated?

Writing

• Does the title accurately characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

Length

• Which portions of the paper should be expanded? Which should be removed, condensed, summarized, or combined?

Title

• Is the title concise, omitting implicit terms, and where possible, stating the main result or conclusion of the manuscript? Avoid abbreviations in the title.

Abstract

• Does the abstract include:
  1. Aim of the study?
  2. Method used?
  3. Results or findings?
  4. Conclusion?

Introduction

• Does the introduction clearly describe:
  1. The background of the study?
  2. The state of the art and relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript?
  3. Gap analysis and novelty statement?
  4. Hypothesis or problem statement (optional)?
  5. Approach to resolve the problem?
  6. The aim of the study?

Method

• Is the method written clearly so other researchers can replicate the experiment or study with the same result?
• Does the paper describe not just the definition of terms but also how the research was conducted?
• Are the location, participants, research instruments, and data analysis methods clearly described?

Results and Discussion

• Is the data presented in processed form (not raw data), organized in tables or figures with supportive descriptions that are easy to follow?
• Does the result relate to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction?
• Does the author compare the results with other investigations, noting any differences?
• Does the author provide a scientific interpretation of each result or finding?
• Are the implications of the research clearly described?
• Are the limitations of the research or drawbacks of the method or position addressed?
• Does the author describe areas for further research or the expansion of ideas?

Conclusion

• Does the conclusion:
  1. Answer the objectives of the research?
  2. Include implications or recommendations (optional)?
  3. Present these in a paragraph format, not as bullet points or numbered lists?