Reviewer’s Guidelines

In order to help the author, improve the manuscript based on your remarks, please be sure to provide complete answers to all of the questions when you submit your report in Editorial Manager.

When composing your review report, you may find it helpful to keep in mind these questions and the generic points below-

Full length research article

• o Examine the importance of the research question addressed in the manuscript (e.g., are objectives and justification clearly stated?).
• o Assess the originality (contribution, addition of knowledge to scientific literature or field) of the manuscript.
• o Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method described in the manuscript.
• o A conclusion drawn in contradiction to the statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript.
• o For analytical papers examine the sampling report, which is mandated in time-dependent studies. For qualitative research make sure that a systematic data analysis is presented and sufficient descriptive elements with relevant quotes from interviews are listed in addition to the author’s narrative.
• o Make specific useful comments on the writing of the manuscript (e.g., writing, organization, figures, etc.).
• o Offer specific comments on the author’s interpretation of the results and conclusions drawn from the results.
• o In case applicable, comment on the statistics (for example question if they are robust and fit-for-purpose and if the controls and sampling mechanisms are sufficient and well described).

 

Review article

• o Discuss the importance of the topic/scope of the review.
• o Assess the originality of the review.
• o Comment on the author's representation of the most relevant recent advances in the field. Specifically, determine whether the references are relevant to the topic and cover both historical literature and more recent developments.
• o Offer comments on the writing, organization, tables, and figures of the manuscript.

 

 

• o Comment on the author's interpretation of the results.

 

For Research articles

➢ Please provide suggestions to the authors on how to improve the clarity of the objectives and rationale of the study. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the replicability/reproducibility of their study. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please clearly indicate if the manuscript requires additional peer review by a statistician. Kindly provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, or statistical reporting. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please provide specific suggestions for improvements, removals, or additions of figures or tables. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please provide suggestions (if needed) to authors on how to improve, tone down, or expand the study interpretations/conclusions. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better emphasize the strengths of their study. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please list the limitations that the authors need to add or emphasize. Please number each limitation so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please provide suggestions to the authors on how to improve the manuscript structure and flow. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

For Review article

➢ Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better justify their reasons. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily respond.

➢ Please list the historical developments of likely future scenarios that authors should add or emphasize more. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily respond.

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve their reference list to include the relevant topics and cover both historical references and recent developments. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Is the review reported in sufficient detail to allow for its replicability and/or reproducibility (e.g., search strategies disclosed, inclusion criteria and risk of bias assessment for individual studies stated, summary methods specified)?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the replicability/reproducibility of their review. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Is the statistical summary method (e.g., meta-analysis, meta-regressions) and its reporting (e.g., P-values, 95%CIs, etc.) appropriate and well described?

Please clearly indicate if the review requires additional peer review by a statistician. Kindly provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the statistical analyses, controls, sampling mechanism, or statistical reporting. Please number each suggestion so that author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the review structure, flow or writing need improving (e.g., the addition of subheadings, shortening of text, reorganization of sections, or moving details from one section to another, following PRISMA guidelines)?

Please provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the review structure and flow. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Could the manuscript benefit from language editing?

Optional question bank for research articles

Have the authors emphasized the novelty and/or originality of the study?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to better emphasize the novelty. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Are there serious flaws that invalidate the study or make it unpublishable?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve their study design and/or methodology. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the literature review section need expansion or improvement, e.g. are any key citations missing or are citations excessive?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the manuscript text. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the explanation of the generalizability of the findings and/or comparison with other studies need expanding?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the manuscript. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the title need improving?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the title. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the abstract capture the main research findings or need improving?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the abstract. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the highlights section capture the main research findings or need improving?

Please provide suggestions to authors on how to better capture the main research findings. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Optional question bank for review articles

Does the title need improving?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the title. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the abstract capture the main research findings or need improving?

Please provide suggestions to the author(s) on how to improve the abstract. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Does the highlights section capture the main research findings or need improving?

Please provide suggestions to authors on how to better capture the main research findings. Please number each suggestion so that the author(s) can more easily respond.

Reviewer’s recommendation and comments form

Title of the Article Reviewed……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

1. Comments on the following area if any:

          a. Background of article/rationale …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

          b. Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

         c. Appropriateness of Statistical Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

         d. Interpretation of Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

         e. Implications ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          f. References (As per APA Guidelines) …………………………………………………………………………

          g. Originality ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          h. Appropriateness of Language ……………………………………………………………………………………

2. Is there a new message or contribution from the manuscript about following?

           a. In the specific area of research …………………………………………………………………………………..

           b. Replication to new setting …………………………………………………………………………………………..

           c. Interplay between the variables ………………………………………………………………………………..

           d. Implications ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

           e. Any other ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. Please rate the manuscript for acceptance (yes/no) : HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW

4. Is this manuscript plagiarism free?: yes/no

5. Comments to Editors ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

6. Recommendation to Editors: Accept/ Minor revision/ Major revision/Reject

Reviewer’s Name with full Address: