Review Guidelines

General Guidelines

1. Mark the parts of the manuscript that contain errors or require revision.
2. Indicate the relevant comments in the margin or alongside the specific text that requires revision.

Content Review

1. Title: Assess its effectiveness, specificity, and clarity.
2. Abstract: Assess whether it is complete and clearly presents the essence of the article.
3. Keywords: Assess whether they represent the article’s essential concepts.
4. Introduction: Assess the currency of the literature, originality, relevance of the topic, and justification for selecting the research subject.
5. Research Method: For empirical studies, assess whether the procedures and data analysis methods are clearly described.
6. Results and Discussion: Assess the accuracy of the analysis, the relevance and currency of the findings, their relationship to prior research, and their scientific contribution.
7. Conclusion and Recommendations: Assess whether the conclusions are logical, valid, concise, and clear. Recommendations may address practical action, theory development, or further research.
8. References: Assess the currency and relevance of the sources, with appropriate use of primary sources. At least 80% of the references should be relevant journal articles or other scholarly research published within the last 5–10 years. The reference list should include at least 10 books. At least 80% of the sources cited in the text should be scholarly sources.
9. Figures and Tables: Check that each figure or table is centered, legible, complete, and not cropped. Ensure it has a clear title, is cited in the text, and is referred to using a capitalized label (for example, “Figure 1” or “Table 1”).

Overall Manuscript Review

1. Is the manuscript easy to follow, logically organized, and clearly structured?
2. Is the manuscript concise and understandable? Identify any sections that should be shortened.
3. Are any parts of the manuscript in need of removal, expansion, or additional explanation?
4. Identify major issues with grammar, punctuation, or spelling. For isolated issues, indicate specific locations. For recurring issues, provide one or two examples rather than editing the entire manuscript.
5. Are abbreviations used appropriately and defined clearly so readers can understand and remember them?
6. Does the manuscript comply with the journal’s style, formatting, and other requirements?
7. Are citations provided for evidence-based information drawn from external sources?

Reviewer Recommendation

1. Minor Revision: The author should make minor revisions. The editorial team will check the revised manuscript.
2. Major Revision: The author should make substantial revisions. The revised manuscript will be returned to the reviewer for further assessment.
3. Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because it is unscientific, has fundamental flaws that cannot be adequately addressed, or falls outside the journal’s scope.