Information for Reviewers

• Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. Please check if you will have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation to conduct a thorough review.
• Please consider the deadline for review completion when accepting to review and manage. If you feel the review process will take longer, please contact the editor to discuss the matter. As a general matter, if you know you will not be able to complete a review within the defined time, you should decline to review the paper
• If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in details as much as possible. If you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Peer review is confidential, and therefore information about the review (e.g. review reports, correspondence with the editor) cannot be shared with 3rd parties.
• Reviewer identity is generally not shared with the author. Reviewers should not reveal their identity to the authors n their comments and should not attempt to contact the author. 
• If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor.

When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind:

Content Quality Originality: Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field? You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor.

Title: Does it clearly describe the article? 

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Please check the content and if possible, make suggestions for improvements.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results: The author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Figures and Tables: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

 Previous Research: If the article builds upon previous research, does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. It is helpful to provide a quick summary of the article at the top of your report. Below are some key points to consider during this task. Please also complete the evaluation form by clicking on "evaluation form", checking various aspects of the paper.