Guideline for Reviewers

The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer

The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before Reviewing

Please consider the following:

1. Does the article fit your expertise?

If you receive a script that does not quite fit your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible.

2. Do you have time to review the paper?

Article reviews should be completed within two weeks. If you feel unable to complete the review within that time period, please notify the editor. If you agree to review the paper but can no longer complete the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

3. Is there a potential conflict of interest?

Although a conflict of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, it is important to disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing.

When reviewing the article, please note the following:

1. Quality Content and Originality,

Is the article fairly new and interesting to publish? Does the article increase or increase knowledge? Does the article comply with journal standards? Is the research important? Is reference article more than 25% in this field? If the research has been discussed earlier, pass on the reference from the work to the editor.

2. Organization and Clarity

Title: Does it clearly describe the contents of the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does the introduction describe what the author expected accurately, and clearly state the issue under investigation? Typically, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors find.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how data is collected? Is the design suitable to answer the questions asked? Is there enough information for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? If the method is new, are they explained in detail? Is the sample right? Have the equipment and materials adequately explained? Does the article explain what type of data is being recorded; Is the author right in describing the measurements?

Result: the author should explain with what words he found in the study. It should be styled clearly and in a logical order. You need to consider whether proper analysis has been done. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please suggest the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Discussion / Conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, and reasonable? Has the author demonstrated how these results relate to previous expectations and research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Table, Picture, Picture: Is it appropriate and displayed with good quality? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?Does the article fit the purpose and scope of the journal?