Reviewer Guideline

Review Process Guidelines

What points should be considered when assessing the paper quality?

1. Is the submitted manuscript clear, correct and within the journal’s scope?

  • Are the problems and purposes of the work clearly stated?
  • Is the subject of the work within the journal’s scope?
  • Is it correct and free of obvious errors?
  • Are the mathematics and methodology of the work rigorous?

2. Is the work original and interesting for the readers?

  • Is the submitted manuscript original? Does it contain new results that advance the prior research results in its scientific field?
  • Has any part of the paper already been published elsewhere? Does it constitute plagiarism?
  • Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?
  • Is the presentation complete for a scientific paper? Is there any critical information missing?

3. Is the presentation of ideas satisfactory?

  • Does the title of the paper reflect the content of the paper?
  • Is the abstract well-written to describe the essential information?
  • Is the introduction section well-written and satisfactory?
  • Is the length of the paper appropriate depending on its type?
  • Is the conclusion section logically entailed by the results?
  • Is the paper written in concise and eloquent English?

Tips for writing a review report

Reviewers should consider the following points when writing their review report

1. There are two sections to write your review, one for the reviewer’s comments to the chief editor and another for the reviewer’s comments to the authors. Your comments to the chief-editor will be read only by the editorial office and will not be revealed to the authors.

2. Provide an overall recommendation for or against the publication of the manuscript to the chief-editor.

3. If you believe that the manuscript requires revision, you are requested to provide constructive comments and suggestions for improving the quality and presentation of the paper.

4. When you provide suggestions on revisions, make it clear if they are mandatory or optional.

5. For timely and rapid review, point out all the faults of the paper only once. Do not add new criticisms after the authors have submitted the revised version. This will delay the review process and make it endless.