The article must meet the following criteria:
1. The scope and aims of the journal
2. Manuscript template guidelines
3. The originality/ novelty of the research
4. Robustness and clarity of the methodology to allow for replication of findings
5. Feasible recommendations put forward for policy implementation
6. Sound and valid conclusions
7. Good references and reference citation
8. Meeting word count for abstract with it showing the mini IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, results and discussions)
9. Simplicity and straightforwardness of the general write-up
10. Contribution to broadening the horizon of knowledge in the field
11. Free from all forms of plagiarism
All the best
Dickson
The article must meet the following criteria:
1. The scope and aims of the journal
2. Manuscript template guidelines
3. The originality/ novelty of the research
4. Robustness and clarity of the methodology to allow for replication of findings
5. Feasible recommendations put forward for policy implementation
6. Sound and valid conclusions
7. Good references and reference citation
8. Meeting word count for abstract with it showing the mini IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, results and discussions)
9. Simplicity and straightforwardness of the general write-up
10. Contribution to broadening the horizon of knowledge in the field
11. Free from all forms of plagiarism
All the best
Dickson
Dear, a reviewer should careful
1- about the scripts analysis and results fall within the defined scope of the journal
2- the decision of acceptance/rejection towards the repute of the journal.
Regards,
MJK
1) What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
2) How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
3) Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
4) Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
5) If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
6) If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
I've read in quite a few places that the reviewer should mainly check whether the manuscript satisfies the following three conditions:
It is
- novel
- interesting
and, of course,
- correct
Thank you all for your contributions, dear @Dickson Adom, @Jahangir Khan, @Hadeel Saleh Haj Aliwi, & @Artur Sergyeyev.
It is good if a reviewer consider the following during reviewing a manuscript:
📷 The conduct of the research must be justified.
📷 The research questions and/or objectives must be well defined.
📷 The research methods appropriate and clearly described.
📷 The results must be clearly and chronologically presented.
📷 The conclusions and recommendations must in line with results of the study.
📷 The analysis done in accordance with the objective of the study.
📷 The abstract must accurately convey what has been done.
📷 The title must accurately convey what has been done.
📷 The study must add new knowledge and/or substantiate existing knowledge.
📷 Language clarity and flow of idea must be clear.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts