Reviewers Guidelines

Does the paper relate to a cohesive argument? Are the ideas clearly presented?

 

Does the title characterize the manuscript? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

 

What portions of the paper should be expanded? Removed? Condensed? Summarized? Combined?

 

Does the title concise, omitting terms that are implicit and, where possible, be a statement of the main result or conclusion presented in the manuscript? Abbreviations should be avoided within the title.

 

Does the abstract consist of 1) aim of the study; 2) method; 3) result or finding; and 4) conclusion?

 

Clearly describing and respectively:

• The background of the study;
• State of the art, relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript;
• Gap analysis, novelty statement;
• Hypothesis or problem statement (optional);
• Approach to resolve the problem; and
• The aim of the study.

• The method is written clearly, so then other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same result;
• Not only describe the definition of terms but also describe how to conduct the research;
• Describe the location, participant, research instrument, and data analysis;

• The data presented has been processed (not raw data) into a table or figure and given a supportive description which easy to follow.
• The result was related to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction section.
• The author describes the result of the study as consistent with what other investigators have reported or there are any differences.
• The author provides interpretation scientifically for each of the results or findings presented.
• The author describes the implications of the research.
• The author describes the limitations of the research or drawbacks to the method or position.
• The author describes further needs/areas for research or expansion of ideas.

Consist of:

• Answer the objectives of the research;
• Implication or recommendation (optional);
• Written in a paragraph, not in bullet/numbering