Reviewer Guideline

What is the Responsibility of a Peer Reviewer?

Peer reviewers are responsible for evaluating the quality of submitted manuscripts. Their primary role is to critically assess manuscripts within their area of expertise and provide constructive feedback to the authors. This includes evaluating the manuscript's relevance, originality, and its strengths and weaknesses.

Procedures to Follow

  1. Reviewers will receive an email requesting a manuscript review, including the title of the article.
  2. Before accepting, reviewers must ensure that:
    • The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
    • There is no conflict of interest (e.g., being one of the authors, having funded the research, etc.).
  3. Reviewers must notify the editorial team regarding their decision to accept or decline the review.
  4. Once a reviewer agrees, the editorial team will send the full manuscript along with the reviewer guidelines and an estimated review deadline. Reviewers may request a deadline extension if the original schedule is not feasible.
  5. Download the manuscript by clicking the file name and conduct a thorough review, commenting directly on the document.
  6. Reviewers assess the manuscript and complete the review form within the given deadline.
  7. At the end of the manuscript, reviewers must provide a concluding comment outlining the key points the author needs to address, along with a final recommendation: Accepted/Accepted with Revision/Rejected.
  8. The reviewed manuscript in Word format must be sent back to [email protected].


What Must I Assess as a Peer Reviewer?

Aspect Key Questions
Originality & Contribution Is the manuscript novel? Does it meaningfully advance knowledge in the field? Does it meet the journal's standards?
Clarity & Significance Is the research importance clearly justified? Is the study objective relevant and significant?
Research Methodology Are all essential method components included (study design, variables, instruments, participants, analysis)? Is there sufficient detail for replication?
Depth of Discussion Do the authors adequately discuss the study's strengths and limitations? Is it contextualized within existing literature?
Accuracy of Conclusion Are the conclusions drawn appropriately from the analysis and aligned with the study objectives?
Literature Adequacy Are the references primary, relevant, and recent (within the last 10 years)?



Ethical Regulations

Principle Expectation
Confidentiality All review-related information must remain confidential throughout and after the review process.
Plagiarism Reviewers must not use manuscript content for personal purposes. Any suspected plagiarism must be reported to the editor immediately.
Objectivity Reviews must be unbiased, regardless of the manuscript's origin or the author's personal background (religion, gender, ethnicity, etc.).
Timeliness Only accept a review if you can commit to completing it within the given timeframe.
Conflict of Interest Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting and withdraw from the process if one exists.