For Reviewer

Reviewer Guidelines:
Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers.

Peer reviewers are tasked with providing critical feedback by reading and evaluating articles within their field of expertise, then providing constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the authors of the submitted articles. Peer reviewers discuss the article's strengths and weaknesses, ways to improve the article's strengths and quality, and evaluate the manuscript's relevance and originality.

Before reviewing, please consider the following:

  • Do you have time to review the article? The review process should be completed within one week. If you agree or require more time, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest? If so, please disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact our editors.

Review Process
When reviewing an article, please consider the following:

  • Title: Does the article clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it accurately reflect what the author says and clearly state the issue under consideration? Typically, the introduction should summarize the relevant context of the research and explain the research findings or other findings. The research should also explain the experiment, hypothesis, and methods.

Article Content

To determine the originality and suitability of a journal, please consider the following:

  • Is the article novel, in-depth, and interesting enough to be published?
  • Does it contribute to knowledge?
  • Does the article meet the standards
  • Scope – Does the article align with the aims and scope 

Comprehensive Methods

  • Does the author accurately explain how the data were collected?
  • Is the theoretical basis or references used appropriate for this research? Are the methods new? If new methods are used, will the author explain them in detail?

Results

This is where the author should explain the findings of the study. They should be organized clearly and in a logical order. You should inform the author if you have any feedback regarding the research findings.

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Are the claims in this section supported by valid and reasonable results?
  • Does the author compare the results of their research with previous or other research?
  • Do the research findings presented in the article contradict previous theories?
  • Does the conclusion explain how scientific research should be pursued?
  • Does it align with the intended explanation by presenting data that is easy for readers to interpret and understand?

Writing Style

  • Authors must be highly critical and conduct a systematic review of the literature on the subject
  • Reviews should focus on a single topic.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

Things to note:

Perspective a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to the issues.

References

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book Review
  • Technology Insight (Media Review)

Final Review

  • All review results submitted by reviewers are confidential.
  • Do not contact authors directly.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are responsible for critically reviewing articles in their field of expertise, then providing constructive feedback and honest feedback to the authors of the submitted articles. Peer reviewers discuss the article's strengths and weaknesses, ways to improve its strengths and quality, and promote the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.