Reviewer Guidelines

Does this paper connect a cohesive argument? Are the ideas presented clearly?

Does the title characterize the script? Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

How much paper should be expanded? Deleted? Thick? Summarized? Combined?

Is the title succinct, omitting implied terms and, if possible, a statement of the main results or conclusions presented in the manuscript? Abbreviations should be avoided in the title.

Does the abstract consist of 1) research objectives; 2) method; 3) results or findings; and 4) conclusion?

Describe clearly and respectively:
1. Research background;
2. State of the art, relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript;
3. Gap analysis, new statement;
4. Hypothesis or problem statement (optional);
5. Approach to solving problems; and
6. Research objectives.

1. Methods are clearly written, so that other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same results;
2. Not only explaining the definition of terms but also describing how to conduct research;
3. Describe the location, participants, research instruments, and data analysis;

Results and Discussion
1. The data presented has been processed (not raw data) into tables or figures and given a description that supports so that it is easy to follow.
2. Outcomes related to the original question or objective outlined in the Introduction section.
3. The author describes the research results that are consistent with what other researchers have reported or there are differences.
4. The author provides a scientific interpretation for each result or finding presented.
5. The author explains the implications of the research.
6. The author explains the limitations of the study or the shortcomings of the method or position.
7. The author describes the need/further area for research or expansion of the idea.

Consists of:
1. Answering the research objectives;
2. Implications or recommendations (optional);
3. Written in paragraphs, not with bullets/numbering.