REVIEWERS GUIDELINES

We believe that in the management of scientific journals, conflicts of interest and subjective judgment will always exist, but to produce the best work, we really appreciate the professional work of every party involved in this journal.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

Peer review helps editors in making editorial decisions and through communication with authors can also help authors improve their manuscripts.

Speed

Each selected reviewer is expected to provide a faster review process, thereby helping publications and authors

Reviewer reviews

The reviewer's review must be carried out objectively, expressing the analysis clearly with supporting arguments.

Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for examination must be required to be a confidential document. It may not be shown or discussed with anyone other than those authorized by the editor.

COMPETING INTERESTS

HOW TO REVIEW

Presentation

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

Writing

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

Length

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

Title

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.

Abstract

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

Introduction

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.

Method

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;

Result and discussion

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 related to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction section.
The author describes the result of the study consistent with what other investigators have reported or there 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.

Conclusion

Consist of: