Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, please please note the following questions:
- Is the article requested to be reviewed under your expertise? If you receive a manuscript that covers topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor or recommend an alternative reviewer.
- Do you have the time to review this paper? Who must complete the review process within two weeks? If you agree and require a more extended period, notify the editor or suggest an alternative reviewer.
- Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer; disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing.
Your review result will help the editor decide whether to publish the articles in our journal. The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.
We are conducting a review.
1. Title, abstract, and keywords.
The article's title should be concise and informative and describe the article’s content. The abstract should briefly describe the paper's contents: the research objectives, the methods, the results achieved, and the principal conclusions. The keywords should be specific and reflect what is essential about the article.
2. Problem Formulation.
Problem recognition and its significance, Clear problem identification and Appropriate research questions, Coverage of problem complexity, and Well-defined objectives
3. Research Methodology.
A concise explanation of research methodology is prevalent; Reasons to choose particular methods are well described; Research design is accurate; Sample design is appropriate; Data collection process is proper; Data analysis methods are relevant and state-of-the-art.
4. Research Findings.
Empirical and theoretical benefits; Economic benefits; Existence of new findings.
References are thoroughly covered in the article; the Recency of contacts provided is strong; Citations and referencing are employed correctly and truthfully.
6. Article’s Presentation and Systematic Order.
Framework and The flow of article presentation, Readability, Grammar, and Writing style.
7. Overall Evaluation
The reviewer gives comments on how to improve the papers. In the end, the reviewer needs to make a recommendation to the editor. The suggestions are as follows:
- Major revision*
- Minor revision*
*Note about revision. If the correction is required, please indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.
The editor will have the final decision on whether to accept or reject the article. The editor may request the author to revise the report before making the final decision.
STEPS FOR SUBMITTING THE REVIEW
Dear Reviewer, please follow the following steps while submitting your review reports;
1. Accept to review
2. Download the manuscript (supplementary files, if any),
3. Submit your review report:
- You are required to write down your manuscript evaluation on the form provided,
- Evaluate each part of the article,
- Provide for recommendations: accepted, minor, major, or rejected
- Comment on the paper if possible (MS Word review tool),
4. Upload the review report:
- The commented manuscript
5. Choose your decision and click the button submit.