Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

The quality of a manuscript submitted to AJBCPS depends on the quality of the review work done. To ensure quality and rigour, the role of a reviewer is key. Without the role of a reviewer, the quality and timeliness of a manuscript will not be achieved. A reviewer provides a double-blinded peer-review process of a manuscript to ensure quality publication, which helps the editorial decision-making process. Then, we expect our reviewers to provide timely review reports, being fair and unbiased. The following guidelines are expected from our reviewers in their review process:

  1. A reviewer provides recommendations on any manuscript received within 14 from the day acknowledgment of the manuscript was received. Otherwise, contact the Editor immediately if the deadline will not be met.
  2. All communication between the editorial board and the reviewer is confidential. No information will be given to anyone, including the author/s without permission from the Editor or editorial board.
  3. Your recommendations and comments should be courteous, encouraging, and development-oriented devoid of bias. Also, identify the strength of the manuscript and areas necessary for improvement.
  4. A reviewer should analyze or evaluate any manuscript based on the following criteria:
    1. Relevance, scope, and importance of the study to AJBCPS
    2. Importance of title or topic
    3. The originality of the paper (article) and logical flow.
    4. Literature review quality and citation
    5. Quality and use of suitable framework/model/theory (if applicable)
    6. Quality and use of suitable research design and methodology
    7. Quality of analysis and discussion (evidence)
    8. Quality of organization and presentation
    9. Contribution to the body knowledge, theory, and practice
    10. The overall quality of the paper (article) and layout.
  5. All recommendations and comments are sent to the respective authors, and reviewers are encouraged to be fair, consistent, and correct in their evaluations and comments (report). Use everyday language so that authors can easily understand the comments and suggestions. Avoid criticizing an author on their manuscript.