Reviewers Guidelines

Peer Reviewers' Responsibilities

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.

Please note the following before reviewing:

  1. Is the article requested to be reviewed according to your expertise? Please notify the editor as soon as possible if a script covers topics outside your area of expertise. You may suggest another reviewer.
  2. Would you have time to review this paper? The review process needs to be completed within two weeks. If you agree, let the editor know as soon as possible if a longer period is required, or suggest an alternative reviewer. 
  3. Are there any potential conflicts of interest? Conflicts of interest do not disqualify you from being a reviewer. All conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editor before reviewing. In case of questions regarding potential conflicts of interest, please feel free to contact the editorial office.

Review Process

Please consider the following aspects when reviewing the article:

  1. Title: Does it clearly illustrate the article?
  2. Abstract: Does it reflect the article's content?
  3. Introduction: Does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered?

Typically, the introduction summarizes the context of the relevant research and provides an explanation of the findings of the research or other findings, as applicable. The research should explain its methods, hypotheses, and experiments.

Content of the Article

In order to determine the originality and suitability of the journal, are there any elements of plagiarism over 20% of this paper field? Certain tools can be used to detect plagiarism and check for similarities from other sources during quick literature searches.

  1. Is the study still eligible for publication if it has been previously done by another author?
  2. Is the article new, deep, and interesting to be published?
  3. How does it contribute to knowledge?
  4. Is the article in compliance with the journal's standards?
  5. Scope - Does the article meet the journal's objectives and scope?


Comprehensive and perfect:

  1. How is the data collected accurately described by the author?
  2. Is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriately for this study?
  3. Can the exposure design be used to answer the question?
  4. Could you replicate the research with decent enough information?
  5. Does the article identify the following procedures?
  6. Have any new methods been developed? Does the author describe a new method in detail if it has been introduced?
  7. Is there any appropriate sampling?
  8. Have the tools and materials used to be adequately explained?
  9. How does the article expose what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurements?


The author must explain his/her research findings in this section. It should be structured logically and clearly. Analyze whether the appropriate analysis has been performed; have statistical tools been used? Please notify us if you have better statistical tools to use, and the interpretation in this section need not be included.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  1. Do the claims in this section seem reasonable and supported by fair results?
  2. Does the author compare the research results with those of other previous studies?
  3. According to the article, does the research contradict previous theories?
  4. How can better scientific research be followed up according to the conclusion?

Tables and Pictures:

Could it be used with the referred explanation by showing data that is easy to interpret and understandable?

Writing Styles

  1. Critical evaluation of the literature should focus mainly on a systematic review of the issues relevant to the field of study.
  2. A review should be focused on a single topic.
  3. Exposure should be written in English and with good and coherent grammar.
  4. It should be easy to understand and interesting to read.

Things that need to be considered:

Perspective, a unique description of experiences and circumstances relevant to the issue.

 Originality Research

  1. The original data and testing must present data that offers a new approach to improving systems, processes, and the precision of tools.
  2. Research policy and observational analysis must clarify the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation of the research results.
  3. The case study should explain the current situation regarding the future challenges and within its conclusions, or what can be learned.

Final Review

  1. Reviewers are required to keep the results of their reviews confidential.
  2. Please inform the editor if you'd like to discuss the article with a colleague.
  3. The author should not be contacted directly.

Ethical issues:

  1. Plagiarism: If you think there is a lot of plagiarism in the article, let the editor know.
  2. Fraud: Detecting fraud is difficult, but if you believe the results are false, please notify the editor.
  3. "The Review" must be submitted by the due date to the editorial office. The editor will consider your suggestions for the article when making the final decision, and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
  4. Whenever you write a comment, please indicate which portions are for the editor and which can be returned to the author. If you have any questions or encounter any problems, please don't hesitate to contact the editorial office.