Review Guidelines

Reviewer should use the following stage to review:
  1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is good reason.
  2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
  3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
  4. Make your notes in the review form provided, such as: such as: a) Is the title of the paper concise enough and can describe the contents of the paper clearly?; b) Does the abstract have summarized briefly and clearly?; c) Does the introduction outline clearly?; d) Does the methode clearly about implemented to solve problems?; e) and others.
  5. Complete the manuscript review form provided.
  6. If necessary, add notes in the manuscript file (insert Comments Word) and then upload the document as an attachment to your review.
  7. Give your initial impression. If the paper is:
    □ Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review;
    □ A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

Please find the Guidance for Reviewers.

Reviewers will make a decision of:
(1) accept,
(2) minor revision,
(3) major revision, or
(4) reject.