Reviewer Guideline

Review Questions

Reviewer's Response

1

Does the article address a topic of current concern in relation to the aims and scope of the journal?  

2

Does the abstract give a clear account of the scope of the paper?

3

Do the keywords adequately reflect the paper?

4

Does the article introduce the problem of and contribution of the study clearly?

Please provide specific suggestions for improvements, of the problem and contribution of the study clearly?

5

Do the objectives and research questions and the rationale of the study clearly stated?

Please provide suggestions to the author/s on how to improve the clarity of the objectives, research questions, and rationale of the study.

6

Does the article take into account relevant and rich contemporary literature review in the area?

7

If the article is concerned with research activity, has a sound methodology been utilized and described?

8

If applicable, is the application/theory/method/study reported in sufficient detail to allow for its replicability and/or reproducibility?

Please provide suggestions to the author/s on how to improve the replicability/reproducibility of their study.

9

If applicable, are statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, and statistical reporting appropriate and well described?

Please clearly indicate if the manuscript requires additional peer review by a statistician. Kindly provide suggestions to the author/s on how to improve the statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, or statistical reporting.

10

Could the manuscript benefit from additional tables or figures, or from improving or removing (some of the) existing ones?

Please provide specific suggestions for improvements, removals, or additions of figures or tables.

11

If applicable, are the interpretation of results and study conclusions supported by the data?

Please provide suggestions (if needed) to the author/s on how to improve, tone down, or expand the study interpretations/conclusions.

12

Have the author/s clearly emphasized the strengths of their study/theory/methods/argument?

Please provide suggestions to the author/s  on how to better emphasize the strengths of their study.

13

Have the author/s clearly stated the limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument?

Please list the limitations that the author/s need to add or emphasize.

14

Does the manuscript structure, flow or writing need improving (e.g., the addition of subheadings, shortening of text, reorganization of sections, or moving details from one section to another)?

Please provide suggestions to the author/s on how to improve the manuscript structure and flow.

15

Does the article distinguish clearly between opinion and empirical evidence?

16

  Does the article contribute to a critical understanding of the issues?

17

   Does the article alert readers to significant new developments in the subject area?

18

Is the article written in a style that is clear and intelligible to a reasonably well informed international professional readership?

19

Does the article clearly reference citations and quotations ?

20

Could the manuscript benefit from language editing?

21

Reviewer Decision:

Please state your term of decision as (Accept, Accept after correction, Reject).

22

Overall Reviewer Manuscript Rating:

Please state the manuscript rating out of 100%.