Reviewer Guidelines

COMPLETE REVIEWER GUIDELINES CONTENT

1. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers assist the editorial board in maintaining the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of the journal. The evaluation must be objective, evidence-based, and constructive.

2. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts are confidential documents.
  • Do not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with anyone.
  • Do not use the data for personal research before publication.
  • Delete downloaded files after review completion.

3. Conflict of Interest

Do NOT accept review if:

  • You know the author personally
  • Same institution affiliation
  • Collaboration within last 3 years
  • Financial or academic competition
  • Thesis supervisor/student relationship

Immediately inform editor if detected.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

Check for:

  • Plagiarism
  • Fabricated data
  • Manipulated images
  • Ethical approval absence (for human/animal studies)
  • Duplicate submission

Report confidentially to editor.

5. Scientific Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers must evaluate using the following framework:

A. Title and Abstract

  • Accurate reflection of study
  • Structured and informative
  • Contains objectives, method, results, conclusion

B. Introduction

  • Clear research problem
  • Adequate literature background
  • Justified research gap
  • Proper citations

C. Methodology

  • Research design appropriateness
  • Sampling adequacy
  • Valid and reliable tools
  • Statistical correctness
  • Ethical approval mentioned

D. Results

  • Logical presentation
  • Correct statistical reporting
  • Tables/figures clarity
  • No interpretation in results

E. Discussion

  • Interprets findings properly
  • Linked with previous literature
  • Theoretical implications
  • No over-generalisation

F. Conclusion

  • Derived from results
  • Not exaggerated
  • Practical implications

G. References

  • Recent literature
  • APA/required style accuracy
  • DOI included where available

6. Recommendation Decision Guide

Recommendation

When to choose

Accept

Minor language edits only

Minor Revision

Small corrections, no new analysis

Major Revision

Methodological/statistical corrections required

Resubmit for Review

Fundamental restructuring needed

Reject

Invalid methodology or unethical research

 

7. How to Write Comments

Provide two sections:

A. Comments for Author

  • Constructive suggestions
  • Page & line numbers
  • Clear improvement guidance

B. Comments for Editor

  • Confidential concerns
  • Ethical issues
  • Publication risk assessment

8. Review Timeline

Submit review within assigned deadline. Request extension if necessary.

9. Tone Policy

Reviews must be professional, respectful, and free from personal criticism.