Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

Peer reviewers play a critical role in the academic publishing process by evaluating and providing constructive feedback on manuscripts within their area of expertise. Reviewers are expected to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, suggest improvements, and assess the relevance and originality of the work.

Before Reviewing, Please Note the Following:

  1. Expertise Alignment: Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? If the topic is not appropriate for your expertise, please notify the editor immediately and recommend an alternative reviewer.

  2. Time Commitment: Do you have sufficient time to complete the review? The review process is expected to be completed within two weeks. If you need more time, please inform the editor as soon as possible or suggest an alternative reviewer.

  3. Conflict of Interest: Are there any potential conflicts of interest? If you have any, disclose them to the editor before commencing the review. Conflicts do not necessarily disqualify you as a reviewer but should be communicated transparently.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following aspects:

  • Title: Does it accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?

  • Abstract: Does it summarize the main findings of the article effectively?

  • Introduction: Does it present the context of the research and clearly define the problem being addressed? The introduction should summarize relevant literature, explain the research findings, and state the hypotheses and methods used.

  • Content of the Article:

    • Assess the originality and potential plagiarism (over 25% similarity). Tools like Scopus can help identify overlaps with existing literature.
    • Evaluate if the study offers new insights and whether it contributes to existing knowledge.
    • Determine if the article adheres to the journal's standards and objectives.
  • Methodology:

    • Are data collection methods adequately described?
    • Is the theoretical basis appropriate for the research question?
    • Is the design suitable for addressing the research question?
    • Are there new methods? If so, are they clearly explained?
    • Is the sampling appropriate, and are the materials and tools used adequately detailed?
  • Results:

    • Are the findings clearly presented and logically sequenced?
    • Has appropriate statistical analysis been conducted? Suggest alternative statistical methods if necessary.
  • Discussion and Conclusion:

    • Are the claims supported by the results?
    • Does the author compare the findings with previous studies?
    • Are there contradictions with established theories?
    • Does the conclusion suggest avenues for further research?
  • Tables and Figures:

    • Are they clearly presented and do they enhance understanding of the data?

Writing Style

  • Ensure that the manuscript demonstrates critical engagement with relevant literature.
  • Focus on a single, well-defined topic.
  • The writing should be clear, coherent, and grammatically correct.
  • Aim for clarity and engagement to make the article interesting to read.

Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect significant plagiarism, notify the editor with details.

  • Fraud: While detecting fraud can be challenging, if you suspect that the results are fabricated, inform the editor.

Confidentiality

  • All reviews are confidential. If you wish to discuss the article with a colleague, please inform the editor first.
  • Do not contact the author directly.

Final Submission

Complete your review by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendations will be taken into account when the editor makes a final decision, and your honest feedback is greatly appreciated. When providing comments, please distinguish between those meant for the editor and those that can be shared with the author.

If you have any questions or encounter any issues during the review process, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.