Reviewer Guidelines

The purpose of this guideline is to help the reviewer evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted manuscripts. All submissions undergo rigorous editorial screenings outlined in the Publishing Policies and are assessed by members of the editorial board. The journal employs a single-blind peer-review procedure. The publisher encourages reviewers to reveal their names and be listed in the published article. This helps build confidence among the journal's users in the content we publish.

Reviewer Responsibilities

The following summarizes the responsibilities of the reviewers to ensure integrity, quality, and timeliness in the peer-review processes.

  • Timeliness: We greatly appreciate the commitment of all our reviewers. We kindly request reviewers to promptly accept or decline review invitations, if accepted, to complete the review within the agreed timeframe.
  • Confidentiality: All manuscripts submitted for review must be kept confidential and should not be discussed with anyone except the editorial board members.
  • Objectivity: Reviewers are encouraged to provide unbiased, respectful, and constructive feedback to enhance the quality of the submitted manuscript.
  • Expertise: Reviewers are encouraged to accept reviews only in areas of expertise.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are encouraged to disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
  • Ethics: Identify any plagiarism, ethical issues, or duplicate submissions.
  • Thoroughness: Critically evaluate methodology, analysis, and significance.

Manuscript Acceptance Criteria

Manuscripts should be written in a well-structured manner, with a logical flow and clear language, and must align with the journal’s core focus areas. The abstract should summarize the main findings, while the introduction, methodology, experiment, results, and discussion should be coherent. A thorough review of the relevant literature is required, with citations formatted according to the journal’s reference style and proper credit given to prior research.

Research must be based on reproducible study designs, with transparent data collection and analysis. The methodology should allow replication, and results must be presented, accurate, and supported by appropriate statistical analyses.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

The reviewers are requested to provide detailed and constructive comments on the manuscript’s content. The general guidelines are as follows:

  • Objectivity: Provide fair, constructive, and unbiased feedback on the content.
  • Evaluation:
    • Does the manuscript outline a clear objective or hypothesis?
    • Does the manuscript align with the journal’s scope?
    • Are the methods, data collection procedures, and analysis robust and well-documented?
    • Do the study results add value to the field?
    • Is the manuscript well-written, and organized?
    • Are the mentioned results well-supported by the data and their interpretation?
    • Are the tables and figures sufficient?
    • Are there major grammatical errors?
  • Recommendations: Provide one of the following:
    • Accept as is.
    • Minor revision.
    • Major revision.
    • Reject.