• REVIEWER'S GUIDELINES

  • Kindly view this page on a computer for the correct layout.

     

    All the reviewers are requested to properly read the PEER REVIEW PROCESS of this journal first.

     

    • ​If the manuscript is eligible, the Editor will send it to two individual Reviewers along with the Reviewer's Evaluation Form link.
    • Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following:
      • The originality of the work
      • The correctness of the methodology used
      • Adherence to ethical guidelines as per the ADBU journal policies
      • Whether the results have been presented well and support the conclusions
      • Complete and correct referencing
      • Does the article qualify for publication? (Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.)
    • Reviewers do not correct the submissions. They simply add comments in the sections which need corrections.

     

  • REVIEWER'S EVALUATION REPORT

    • Please enter your personal details correctly. They will be printed on the reviewer certificate as they are.

  • REVIEWER'S DETAILS

  •  -

  •

  • EVALUATION

  • Date of Review*
     - -

  • OVERALL

  • How do you estimate the impact of this paper?*
  • Do authors present any new experimental data not yet published in the literature?*
  • Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?*
  • Is the submission in Standard English to aid the understanding of the reader?*
  • Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?*

  • BODY

  • Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract/summary and a concluding section?*
  • Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?*
  • Do you feel the subject of the paper is sufficiently interesting to justify its length?*
  • Does this paper require addition of any kind?*
  • Does this paper require omission of any kind?*
  • Is there any part of the paper that must be more clearly/precisely defined?*

  • TABLES AND FIGURES

  • Is there any figure and table that is not well described in the context of the paper?*

  • REFERENCES

  • Are there any references that should be added?*
  • Are there any references that should be removed?*

  • RECOMMENDATION

    • Accept – if the paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
    • Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
    • Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.
    • Reject – if the paper is not suitable for publication in this conference or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
  • Your recommendation for this paper*
  • Should be Empty: