Reviewer Guideline

The editor expects the reviewers' suggestion on the manuscript by considering and ansvering following questions. At the end of the review process, it is expected to recieve a letter "Comments to Authors". It is not a rigid rule but the reviewers can also send a letter "Comments to Editor". 

Is the topic timely?

Does the manuscript contain a critical but fair evaluation of the literature?

Does the manuscript provide a new and insightful perspective?

Is the manuscript balanced, accurate and complete?

Which aspects of scholarly presentation require improvement (if any)?

Do you have any ethical concerns about the manuscript? (e.g., research-related, publishing-related, bias, defamatory language)

Where applicable, have the requested revisions been adequately addressed?

If you believe the manuscript is not a good fit for this journal, in which journal(s) would you expect to read it?

 

Comments to Author

A suggested review should cover the following points:

  1. Summary
    Begin your report with a summary of what the manuscript is about. Please put the topic into the context of the broader subject area and indicate the overall significance of the work. Please provide an impression of the overall quality of the manuscript and its strengths, and state whether there are any major flaws or weaknesses.
  1. Major issues
    Are there any flaws (e.g., topics, ideas or research work misinterpreted or lacking; bias); what are they, and what is the severity of their impact on the completeness or quality of the discussion and/or conclusions? Has similar work already been published? Is it cited? Does the current manuscript add anything new to the body of knowledge? Do the points of discussion confirm or contradict current thinking and is sufficient literature evidence provided? If major revisions are required, what are they? Are there major issues in the presentation, such as language, structure, or quality of discussion?
  1. Minor issues
    Avoid focusing on the format and layout of the article. Please indicate if and where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous, if the reference list is balanced and gives proper credit to published work, if there are factual, numerical, or unit errors, and if the figures, tables, and schemes are appropriate, of sufficient quality, and properly labeled.

It is expected to recieve a good review containing both the positive and negative attributes of the paper. A specific feedback is more useful than general comments.

 

 

Comments to Editor

In addition to the questions and comments asked to the authors, write your notes that you want to convey to the editor in this field.