Reviewer Guideline

This guideline aims to simplify the work process for reviewers. To facilitate the review process using OJS, it's recommended to watch the "Reviewer’s Steps" video here.

Reviewers are tasked with critically reading and assessing a manuscript within their field of expertise. They should then provide respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors regarding their submission. It's important for reviewers to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the article, suggest ways to enhance its quality, and evaluate its relevance and originality.

Before Reviewing:

Expertise Match: Ensure the manuscript aligns with your expertise. If it doesn't, inform the editor and suggest an alternate reviewer.

Time Commitment: Reviews should be completed within two weeks. If not feasible, notify the editor and recommend a replacement.

Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts to the editor before reviewing.

During Review:

Content Quality and Originality: Assess if the article contributes novel insights and aligns with the journal's standards. Check if the research adds substantial knowledge to its field.

Organization and Clarity: Evaluate the clarity of the title, abstract, introduction, method, results, and conclusion. Check if the information is logically presented and if the data, tables, figures, and images are clear.

Scope: Ensure the article fits the aims and scope of the journal.

Making Comments:

Confidentiality: Keep all submissions confidential and avoid discussing them with third parties without permission.

Ethical Issues: Report any suspected plagiarism, fraud, or ethical concerns to the editor. Identify any breaches in ethical norms.

Final Steps:

Complete the "Reviewer’s Comments" form by the due date. Your feedback will greatly influence the editor's decision.

Clearly mark comments meant only for editors and those for the author(s). Reach out to the editorial office for any questions or concerns.