BIJED

This guide outlines the steps and expectations required for BIJED reviewers to carry out their work effectively and efficiently as possible.

Accepting Review Invitations

Before accepting the editor's invitation for a review, consider the following:

• Does the manuscript you are being asked to review truly match your expertise?

• Do you have time to complete the review of the manuscript in the allotted time?

• Are there any potential conflicts of interest?

Conducting the Review

The following are steps to be taken once a reviewer accepts the editor's invitation to review a manuscript:

1. Research the Journal

   • Read through the contents of previously published articles of the journal to get a sense of the journal’s published content and house style to decide whether the paper being reviewed is suitable for the journal or not.

   • Refer to the Instructions for Authors to check if the paper meets the submission criteria of the journal (e.g. length, scope, and style of presentation).

2. Evaluate the Manuscript

   Evaluate the manuscript base on the following:

   • Scope of the Journal

     • Is the content of the manuscript within the scope of the Journal?

   • Originality

     Is the content of the manuscript novel enough to warrant its publication? Will it contribute to existing Knowlegde in the subject area? Does article conform to the journal's standards?

   • Structure

     Title

     Is the title suitable? Does it clearly describe the mauscript?

     Abstract

     Does it reflect the content of the manuscript? Are relevant keywords provided?

     Introduction

     Does it clearly describe the purpose and aims of the research? Is the problem being investigated clearly stated?

     The introduction should summarize the relevant research to provide context, and explain what findings of other author(s), if any, are being challenged or extended.

     Method

     Does the author clearly and accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design appropriate for answering the research questions? Is there sufficient information (including the procedures followd and how the prodedures are ordered) to aid replication of the research? If methods utilized are new, are they clearly explained in detail? Was the sampling adequate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described?

     Results

     Here, the author(s) should explain in words and logical sequence what has been discovered in the research. Has appropriate analysis been carried out? Are the statistics correct?

     Note:  Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

     Discussion

     Are the results and their meaning clearly interpreted? Have the author(s) indicated how the results relate to the expectations and earlier research?

     Conclusion

     Do the conclusions align with the data? Do the conclusions explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

     References

     Are the references sufficient, up-to-date, and relevant? Are they properly written following the reference style guide (e.g. APA 7th edition)?

     Figures and Tables

     Are the figures and tables informative enogh to consider them an important part of the write up? Are all the figures and tables necessary? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent? Are they easy to interpret and comprehend?

   • Language

     Is the manuscript in Standard English to aid understanding of the reader? If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editor, however.

3. Provide Detailed Comment

   Comments are an opportunity to seek clarifications and provide author(s) with feedbacks and constructive criticism that can improve their submission. Hence, commentaries should be courteous, constructive, and clearly presented in a way that is easily understood and suitable for transmission to the authors. The following are few points to keep in mind while writing your comments:

   • Comments should be deviod of any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

   • Suggest how the author can improve clarity, succinctness, and the overall quality of presentation where necessary.

   • Confirm whether the subject of the paper justify its length. Where adjustment of the paper length is recommended, indicate specific areas where such adjustment is required.

   • A referee may disagree with the author’s opinions, but should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the available evidence.

   • Provide insight into any observed deficiencies, explaining and supporting your judgment so that both editors and authors are better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data.

4. Make a Recommendation

   Once you’ve read the paper and have assessed its quality, you need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication by choosing from one of the following options:

   • Accept submission: this indicates that the submission should be accepted with no or just minor changes (e.g. fixing typos, small changes in wording, clarification of crucial examples).

   • Minor revision: this indicates that the author needs to make some small changes before publication. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes. The changes will be reviewed by the editor and no further peer review will be required.

   • Major revision: this indicates that substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text are required. The author will need to make the requested changes and go through another round of peer review, possibly with you or with a new reviewer.

   • Reject: this indicates that the paper is not suitable for publication with this journal or the revisions required are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

Other Important Considerations