Reviewer’s Guide

Home › Reviewer’s Guide

When reviewing an article, our reviewers keep the following in mind:

  • Content Originality and Quality Does this article warrant publication based on the novelty of its content? Will it contribute to the canon of knowledge? Does the article stick firmly to the journal’s standards? Are the research questions germane? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? Quick literature search tools such as Scopus could be used to see if there are any reviews of the area.
  • Clarity and Proper Organization
  • Title: Is the article clearly described with this?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hopes to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
  • Method: Does the author clearly and accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design appropriate for answering the question posed? Are there enough information present to enable replication of the research? Does the article indicate the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If they are new methods are they explained in detail? Was the sampling adequate? Have the equipment and materials been appropriately described? Does the article make clear what type of data was recorded; was the author measurements description precised?
  • Results: This is where the author(s) should explain in words the discovery in the research. It should be logical sequence and clearly laid out. You will need to consider if suitable analysis has been carried out. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the author(s) indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or refute previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
  • Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and comprehend?
  • Scope – Is the article in line with the purpose and scope of the journal?

Additional Comments

  • All submissions are confidential and none of the aspect of the submissions should be discuss with a third party.
  • If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please seek the permission of the editor first.
  • Please do not contact the author directly.
  • Ethical Issues:
  • – Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a considerable copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible

– Fraud: If you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor

– Other ethical concerns: Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor

“Reviewer’s Comments” form should be completed on/before the due date of receipt at editorial office. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much valued.
Please indicate the section of comments intended for only the editors and the section of comments that can be returned to the author(s) when writing comments, Please never hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office with any questions, concerns or complains you may have.