Reviewer Guideline

Role and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

The 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. They are supposed to:

• Ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.
• Uphold the journal's integrity by identifying invalid research and helping to maintain the journal's quality.
• Fulfil a sense of obligation to the community and their area of research.
• Establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
• Help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other problems by dinting their familiarity with the subject area.
• Reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as a reviewer, researchers "repay" the same consideration they receive as authors.

 

What is addressed by the reviews?

The reviewers are asked to follow the questions below, which include an assessment of the scientific quality of the article in general; the pertinence, originality and coherence of its content; the clarity of its arguments and structure; sufficient and explicit methodology and theoretical framing; its adequacy and present relevance; the selection of references; and clear written expression with regard to language and formatting in accordance with our author guidelines. The reviewer makes sure that the citation in the work is sufficient and otherwise point out any instances of incorrect citations/plagiarism.

• Scientific Quality
  Does the manuscript in general meet the standards for academic articles? Is the research question clear, the analysis based on an appropriate methodology and theoretical foundations, and the conclusion convincing?
  
  
• Originality & Relevance
  Does the article present original research results? Is the issue being raised innovative and the contribution of the author clear and sufficient to be regarded as an original piece of research? Does it make a significant contribution to the existing scholarly discourse?
  
  
• Structure
  Is the structure logical and easy to follow? Can the main research question be identified? Can the arguments be easily followed? Are the results clearly presented and do they support the conclusions?
  
  
• Theory & Method
  Is the theoretical framework stated and clear? Are current academic debates taken into account? Is the research methodologically sound? Are the methods used appropriate for the research questions?
  
  
• References
  Are the works and/or words of others appropriately cited or quoted according to scientific standards? Can any instances of incorrect citations/plagiarism be pointed out? Is the list of references comprehensive and sufficient? Does the list of references reflect relevant current works on the research topic?
  
  
• Language
  Is the language appropriate, clear and understandable? Language correction itself is not a requested part of the peer review process, as all articles are subjected to a standard proofreading procedure later.