Guidelines for Reviewers

These guidelines are designed to assist peer reviewers in evaluating manuscripts objectively, systematically, and constructively in accordance with academic standards and publication ethics. The review process is conducted based on the principle of double-blind peer review.

1. Presentation and Coherence of Arguments

  • Is the article structured with cohesive and logical arguments?
  • Is the flow of ideas between sections well connected?
  • Are the main ideas presented clearly, systematically, and easy to follow?

2. Writing Quality

  • Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Is the writing style concise, clear, and academic?
  • Are sentences and paragraphs well-structured and not overly verbose?

3. Length and Proportion of the Manuscript

  • Which parts of the article need to be:
    • expanded,
    • shortened,
    • summarized,
    • combined, or
    • removed?
  • Is the proportion among sections (introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion) balanced?

4. Article Title

  • Is the title concise and informative?
  • Does the title avoid ambiguous or implicit terms?
  • If possible, does the title reflect the main findings or conclusions of the research?
  • Is the title free from uncommon abbreviations?

5. Abstract

  • Does the abstract include the following elements:
    1. Research objectives;
    2. Research methods;
    3. Main findings or results;
    4. Conclusions or implications?
  • Is the abstract consistent with the overall content of the manuscript?

6. Introduction

Does the introduction clearly include:

  • Background and research significance;
  • Relevant and up-to-date literature review;
  • Analysis of the research gap and statement of novelty;
  • Hypothesis or research questions (if applicable);
  • The approach used to address the problem;
  • Clearly formulated research objectives?

7. Research Method

  • Is the method described clearly and operationally so that it can be replicated by other researchers?
  • Does the author not only define terms but also explain how the research was conducted?
  • Does the method adequately explain:
    • research location or context,
    • participants or research objects,
    • research instruments,
    • data collection techniques,
    • data analysis techniques?

8. Results and Discussion

  • Are the presented data processed data rather than raw data?
  • Are tables, figures, or graphs accompanied by clear and understandable descriptions?
  • Are the findings relevant to the research objectives or questions?
  • Does the author:
    • relate findings to previous studies,
    • explain similarities or differences in findings,
    • provide logical scientific interpretations?
  • Are the implications of the findings explained conceptually, socially, or normatively?
  • Are research limitations or methodological weaknesses honestly acknowledged?
  • Does the author propose opportunities or directions for future research?

9. Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion:
    • answer the research objectives or questions,
    • appear in paragraph form (not bullet points),
    • include implications or recommendations (if relevant)?
  • Does the conclusion go beyond merely repeating results by emphasizing the significance of the findings?

10. References

  • Does the author use reference management software (e.g., Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote, or similar)?
  • Are the references:
    • published within the last 10 years,
    • dominated by primary sources?
  • Do at least 80% of the references come from scientific journal articles?
  • Is the citation style consistent with APA Style (7th Edition)?