PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of published articles. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and are affiliated with different institutions. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on its originality, methodological soundness, significance, clarity, and contribution to the field. The Editor makes the final publication decision based on the reviewers' recommendations.

If the two reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the Editor may appoint a third independent reviewer to conduct an additional evaluation before making the final decision.

Reviewers are responsible in reading and evaluating manuscripts in their fields of expertise in order to give constructive feedback, critique, and recommendation to the authors.

Before evaluating the manuscripts, reviewers should confirm that the topic of the manuscripts suits their fields of expertise. If the topic does not suit their expertise, they are expected notify the editors and recommend an alternative reviewer.

When evaluating the articles, reviewers comment directly on the document file and fill in the reviewer form regarding the following:

  1. The clearness of the title
  2. The suitability of the topic to the journal’s focus and scope
  3. The representation of article content in the abstract
  4. The comprehension on problems in the introduction: the newest development of the issue, summary of relevant research, discussion of previous findings, theories, concepts, research aims and inquiries
  5. The details of methodology and research procedures, and the suitability of the design to answer research inquiries
  6. The logical analysis of findings and comparison to previous research result. Articles that are not based on research should be evaluated for the logical consequence between sub-headings.
  7. The suggestion for further research
  8. The functionality of figures and tables
  9. The completeness of reference list

Reviewers comments will be considered for editorial decision and are highly appreciated.