Reviewer Guidelines

Responsibility of Peer Reviewers

As a peer reviewer, your primary responsibility is to assess and provide constructive feedback on manuscripts within your field of expertise. You are expected to evaluate the article’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall quality, offering suggestions for improvement and ensuring that the manuscript meets the necessary academic standards. Reviewers also need to assess the authenticity and relevance of the manuscript, providing insights into how the research aligns with current trends in the field.

Before Reviewing:

1. Is the manuscript within your area of expertise?
If you receive a manuscript outside your area of expertise, please inform the editor as soon as possible. You may recommend an alternative reviewer who is better suited for the topic.

2. Do you have adequate time to review the manuscript?
The review process should be completed within two weeks. If you require more time, please notify the editor immediately or suggest another reviewer.

3. Are there any conflicts of interest?
While conflicts of interest do not disqualify you from reviewing a manuscript, it is important to disclose any potential conflicts to the editor before beginning the review process. If you are uncertain, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office for clarification.

Review Process

When reviewing the manuscript, please consider the following:

Title:
Does the title accurately represent the content of the article?

Abstract:
Is the abstract a clear reflection of the article’s content, summarizing key points effectively?

Introduction:
Does the introduction clearly state the problem being addressed and provide an adequate background for understanding the research? Does it lay out the hypotheses, research questions, and the methods used?

Content Evaluation

Originality and Suitability for the Journal:
- Is there a risk of plagiarism in the manuscript (check for a similarity index greater than 20%)?
- Does the research add new value to the field, providing original contributions?
- Does the manuscript meet the standards and objectives of the journal?

Scope:
- Does the article align with the journal's scope and aims?
- Is it relevant and appropriate for publication in the journal?

Research Quality:
- Does the research provide novel insights into systems, processes, or tools?
- Are the findings significant and applicable to the field of study?

Methodology

Data Collection and Methodology:
- Has the author clearly explained the data collection methods?
- Is the theoretical framework or references used appropriately?
- Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research questions?
- Are the methods described in detail, including any new or innovative techniques?

Sampling:
- Is the sampling method appropriate for the research?
- Are the tools, instruments, and materials adequately explained?

Results

Clarity and Logic of Results:
- Are the research findings clearly presented and logically sequenced?
- Has the appropriate statistical analysis been used?
- If you have alternative statistical tools to recommend, please notify the editor.

Discussion and Conclusion

Interpretation of Results:
- Are the conclusions drawn from the results reasonable and supported by the data?
- Does the author compare the findings with previous studies in the field?
- Are there contradictions with established theories or research?
- Does the conclusion provide insight into future research directions?

Writing Style

- Is the article written in clear, concise, and coherent language?
- Is the manuscript easy to understand and engaging?
- Are the grammar and writing style adequate?

Tables and Figures

- Do the tables and figures support the text effectively?
- Are they easy to interpret and clearly labeled?

References

- Are the references complete and correctly formatted?
- Do they adequately support the research and reflect the most recent literature?

Ethical Issues

Plagiarism:
If you suspect plagiarism or the manuscript contains significant similarities with previously published works, please inform the editor immediately.

Data Integrity and Fraud:
If you suspect that the research findings are fabricated or manipulated, please raise the issue with the editor.

Confidentiality:
All review comments and recommendations should remain confidential. Do not discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process. If you wish to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, kindly inform the editor beforehand.

Final Review:
- Submit your review by the due date.
- Your honest feedback will contribute to the editorial decision-making process.
- When providing comments, be sure to distinguish between those intended for the editor only and those that can be shared with the author.