Reviewer Guidelines

A rigorous and effective review requires a systematic approach. Reviewers are advised to first read the entire manuscript to gain a holistic understanding of its core argument, methodology, and overall contribution before commencing a detailed, section-by-section critique. This initial reading provides the necessary context for a more nuanced evaluation. The subsequent in-depth assessment should address the key components of a standard scientific paper.

• Title: The evaluation begins with the title. Is it clear, concise, and does it accurately reflect the content and scope of the article? A good title should be both informative for specialists and accessible enough to attract the intended readership.
• Abstract: The abstract serves as a critical advertisement for the paper. The reviewer must assess whether it effectively summarizes the key points, including the research question, methods, principal results, and main conclusions. It should be a complete, standalone summary suitable for direct inclusion in abstract services, typically under 200-300 words and free of undefined abbreviations or references.
• Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for research. The reviewer should check if it clearly states the problem being addressed and its importance, provides sufficient background by referencing relevant previously published work, and outlines the main advances being reported.
• Methods: This section is the cornerstone of scientific reproducibility. The reviewer must determine if the methodology is sound, appropriate for the research question, and explained with sufficient clarity and detail to allow another researcher to replicate the work.
• Results and Discussion: Here, the reviewer assesses the presentation and interpretation of the findings. Are the results presented clearly and logically? Are they supported by robust evidence (e.g., data, figures, statistical analysis)? Is the significance of the results discussed thoughtfully in the context of the broader field and compared with recent, relevant literature? Unsupported claims are a major red flag.
• Conclusion: The conclusion should do more than simply restate the results. The reviewer must evaluate whether it effectively summarizes what has been learned from the study and why these findings are interesting and useful. The conclusions drawn must be directly and logically supported by the results presented in the paper.
• Figures and Tables: Visual elements must be both essential and clear. The reviewer should assess whether all figures and tables are necessary for understanding the paper, well-designed, and easy to interpret. Each should have an informative, self-contained caption that explains the content without requiring the reader to hunt through the main text.
• References: The reference list provides insight into the author's engagement with the existing literature. The reviewer should consider whether the author has cited the most recent and appropriate work in the field. It is also important to check for potential citation bias, such as an excessive number of citations to the author's own work, and to ensure that all references are accurate and complete.