Peer Review Process

This journal implements a blind peer review process to ensure the impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Authors are required to submit their manuscripts without revealing their identities to the reviewers, while the identities of the reviewers are also kept confidential throughout the review process. By employing blind peer review, we aim to uphold the standards of fairness, objectivity, and scholarly excellence in the assessment of submitted articles. This approach helps to promote high-quality research and maintains the integrity of the peer review process within our journal.

 

Article Review

During manuscript assessment, reviewers should consider several aspects:

  1. Originality and Content Quality:
    Evaluate the article's novelty and determine if it belongs within the top 25% of its field. Ensure the article:
    • Adheres to the journal's standards.
    • Significantly contributes to knowledge.
    • Emphasizes the importance of the research objectives or background.
  1. Structural Organization:
    • Check for clear division into standard sections: introduction, methodology, results and discussion, and conclusion.
    • Ensure figures and tables are well-organized.
  1. Content Clarity:
    1. Theme Alignment:
      Verify the article aligns with the journal's theme or topic.
    2. Specific Clarity Elements:
      • Title: Assess if the title clearly reflects the article's content.
      • Abstract: Evaluate if the abstract accurately summarizes the article.
    3. Introduction:
      • Confirm the research objectives are clearly defined.
      • Assess if the author effectively articulates the research issues by:
      • Summarizing relevant previous research.
      • Specifying the objects of study in previous research.
      • Clearly outlining the different aspects the author examines.
    4. Methodology:
      Evaluate whether the author:
      • Precisely explains data collection details.
      • Uses methods aligned with their objectives.
      • Identifies specific procedures undertaken.
      • Explains innovative methods in detail and clarity.
      • Employs sufficient sampling.
      • Adequately describes materials and tools.
    5. Results and Discussion:
      • Verify clear presentation of findings with logical and scientific explanations.
      • Constructively inform the author and editor of any data processing issues identified.
    6. Conclusion:
      Examine if the conclusion:
      • Aligns with or contradicts the hypothesis.
      • Explains the correlation of findings with previous research.
      • Clearly articulates the research's contribution to knowledge.
    7. Tables and Figures:
      Assess the suitability, effectiveness in presenting data, and ease of comprehension of tables and figures.