Reviewer Guidelines

Does the paper relate a cohesive argument? Are the ideas presented?
Does the title characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?
What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?
Is the title concise, omitting implicit terms and, where possible, a statement of the main result or conclusion presented in the manuscript? Abbreviations should be avoided within the title.
Does the abstract consist of 1) the aim of the study; 2) the method; 3) the result or finding; and 4) the conclusion?
Clearly describing and respectively:
  • The background of the study;
  • State-of-the-art, relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript;
  • Gap analysis, novelty statement;
  • Hypothesis or problem statement (optional);
  • Approach to resolve the problem; and
  • The aim of the study.
  • The method is written clearly, so then other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same result;
  • Not only describe the definition of terms but also describe how to conduct the research;
  • Describe the location, participant, research instrument, and data analysis;
Result and discussion
  • The presented data has been processed (not raw) into a table or figure and given a supportive description that is easy to follow.
  • The result relates to the original questions or objectives in the Introduction section.
  • The author describes the result of the study as consistent with what other investigators have reported or if there are any differences.
  • The author scientifically interprets each of the results or findings presented.
  • The author describes the implications of the research.
  • The author describes the limitations of the research or drawbacks to the method or position.
  • The author describes different needs/areas for research or expansion of ideas.
Consist of:
  • Answer the objectives of the research;
  • Implication or recommendation (optional);
  • Written in a paragraph, not in bullet/numbering.