Guidelines for the Reviewers
Overview
Peer reviewers have the duty of criticizing by reading and analyzing manuscripts in their area of specialization, then providing helpful suggestions and candid criticism to the author of the submitted paper. Peer reviewers debate the article's advantages and disadvantages, provide suggestions for improving the paper's quality and strength, and assess the manuscript's relevancy and veracity.
Note:
Is it requested that you will evaluate the content using your knowledge? If a script involves subjects that are not within your area of expertise, please let the editor know as soon as possible. You might recommend a different reviewer.
Do you have the time to read this paper? It will take two weeks to finish the evaluation process. If you agree, inform the editor as soon as possible if a longer deadline is necessary or recommend a different reviewer.
Exist any possible entanglements of interests? You are still eligible to be a reviewer even if you have conflicts of interest. Before reviewing, any potential conflicts of interest must be declared to the editor. Please feel free to get in touch with the editorial office if you have any issues about possible conflicts of interest.
The Review Process
When perusing the paper, please keep the following things in mind:
Title: Does the article's title provide a clear illustration?
Abstract: Does it accurately represent the information in the article?
Introduction: Does the introduction properly define the issue under consideration and reflect the correctness of the author's submissions?
The context of the pertinent study is often summarized in the introduction, and the research conclusions or additional discoveries, if appropriate, are explained. The study should describe its procedures, theories, and experiments.
Article Content
Are there any instances of plagiarism in this sector that exceed 5% in order to assess the originality and acceptability of the journal? During short literature searches, certain tools may be used to spot plagiarism and check for similarities from other sources.
If the research has already been completed by another author, is it still acceptable for publication?
Is the article original, in-depth, and worth publishing?
What contribution does it make to knowledge?
Is the paper in accordance with the requirements of the journal?
Does the paper fit within the journal's goals and scope?
Method
How well does the author summarize the data that was gathered?
Is the theoretical foundation or source employed in this research appropriate?
Can the question be answered using the exposure design?
Could you repeat the study if you had enough data?
Does the article include the following steps?
Have any innovative techniques been created? If a new approach has been presented, does the author discuss it in detail?
Is there a suitable sample available?
Have the methods and supplies utilized been sufficiently explained?
When explaining the measurements, how does the article reveal the sort of data that is being recorded?
Results:
In this part, the author must describe the results of his or her investigation. It ought to be rationally and plainly organized. Check to see whether the right analysis was done and if statistical techniques were used. If you have access to more accurate statistical software, please let us know; the interpretation in this part is optional.
Discussion and Conclusion:
Are the assertions in this section plausible and backed by just outcomes?
Does the author provide comparisons between the study findings and those from other earlier studies?
Does the study, as stated in the article, refute earlier theories?
The conclusion asks how better scientific research may be pursued.
Writing Context:
The fundamental objective of a critical analysis of the literature should be to conduct a systematic examination of the topics pertinent to the subject of research.
A review should concentrate on a specific subject.
Writing exposure should be done in English and use clear, concise language.
It ought to be simple to comprehend and engaging to read.
Original Research:
The original data and testing must provide information that suggests a novel strategy for enhancing systems, procedures, and the accuracy of instruments.
The viability, efficacy, and application of the study findings must be made clear via research policy and observational analysis.
The case study should describe the present circumstance in relation to anticipated difficulties and lessons that may be drawn from it.
Final Review:
Reviewers must maintain the privacy of their reviews' findings.
If you plan to discuss the article with a colleague, please let the editor know.
You shouldn't get in touch with the author directly.
Ethical Considerations:
Let the editor know if you believe there is a lot of plagiarism in the article.
Although it might be difficult to spot fraud, if you think the results are inaccurate, please let the editor know.
The editorial office must receive "The Review" by the deadline. Your candid input is much welcomed, and the editor will take it into account when making the final decision.
Please note in your comments which parts are for the editor and which may be sent back to the author. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with the editorial office if you have any inquiries or run into any issues.