REVIEWER GUIDELINES
The reviewer is responsible for critically reading, analyzing and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing the strengths and weaknesses of the article along with constructive, respectful and honest feedback to authors about their submission.
When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:
SCOPE
Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
CONTENT QUALITY AND ORIGINALITY
- Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?
- Does it add to the canon of knowledge?
- Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards?
- Is the research question an important one?
ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY
TITLE
Does it clearly describe the article?
ABSTRACT
Does it reflect the content of the article?
INTRODUCTION
Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
METHOD
Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
RESULTS
This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
DISCUSSION
Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories?
CONCLUSION
Match the research objectives and answer the research question. Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
TABLES, FIGURES, IMAGES
Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?
FINAL COMMENTS
- All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party.
- If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first.
- Please do not contact the author directly.
- Ethical Issues
PLAGIARISM
If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor