Your evaluation and feedback are crucial in ensuring the quality and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Your insights will shape the direction of the journal's content and contribute to advancing knowledge in the field.

Evaluation Criteria and Measurements

We evaluate manuscripts based on five main categories: Overall Value of the Article, Research Subject and Content, Research Methodology, Research Results, Format.

Within each category, please rate the following aspects using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree."

Overall Value of the Article

• Can this research contribute to the academic development of the subject area?

• How influential is this research on the advancement of the field or the academic culture of the relevant community?

• Is this research worthy of publication as a journal article?

• Is the overall writing skill appropriate for an academic article?

• Will readers be able to understand the content after reading it?

• Are the sentences clear and easy to read?

Research Subject and Content

• Is the research topic original and creative?

• Does it present a new concept to the subject area?

• Does it contain information important to the field?

• Does it consider existing perspectives and offer a new viewpoint that enhances understanding of the subject area?

• Is the logical development of the research topic clear?

• Are the theories, concepts, and ideas presented appropriate for explaining the research?

• Are appropriate research questions formulated?

Research Methodology

• Are appropriate research methods used?

• Is the flow and process of the research—such as design, analysis, and results—appropriate?

• Are the research hypotheses presented appropriately and reasonably?

• Are the adopted research methods properly executed?

• Are additional experiments or analyses presented where necessary?

• Can the research data be shared?

• Are the research data ethically obtained?

• Are the research contents organized and presented comprehensively?

Research Results

• Are the research results presented logically and reasonably?

• Is the interpretation of the results valid?

• Are the results presented clearly?

• Do the research results have social impact?

• Do the results make a significant academic contribution?

• Can the research results be practically applied and utilized?

Format

• Is the number and scope of references appropriate?

• Does it include important literature necessary to properly explain the research? Are appropriate references cited?

• Are the diagrams clear and easy to understand?

• Is the length and content of the abstract appropriate?

• Does the manuscript adhere to the submission guidelines and editorial format of this journal?

Recommendation

• Accept: Suitable for publication in its current form.

• Minor Revision: Minor changes are needed before publication.

• Major Revision: Significant changes are required; the revised paper should be re-evaluated.

• Reject: Not suitable for publication due to fundamental issues.

Confidential Comments for the Editor-in-Chief

Please provide your insights on the paper's strengths, weaknesses, and overall suitability for publication. This information will assist in the editorial decision-making process.

Comments to the Author

Offer constructive and specific feedback to help the author improve the manuscript. Please highlight both the positive aspects and areas needing improvement.

Sample Feedback to the Author

Your manuscript presents a compelling exploration of [specific area/topic], and several aspects stand out:

Strengths

1. Original Contribution

The study introduces innovative concepts in [specific area], particularly [describe specific novel idea or model]. This significantly advances current understanding and fills a notable gap in the literature. The integration of [specific methods or theories] is commendable and offers a fresh perspective that could stimulate further research in this area.

2. Methodological Rigor

The research design is robust, employing [specific methodologies, e.g., a mixed-method approach, longitudinal study, randomized controlled trial]. The use of [specific statistical analyses or tools] enhances the credibility of the findings. Your meticulous approach to data collection and analysis strengthens the validity of the results.

3. Clarity and Organization

The manuscript is well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader seamlessly through the introduction, methodology, results, and discussion. The use of subheadings and clear delineation of sections improves readability.

Areas for Improvement

1. Depth of Literature Review

While the literature review covers key studies, it could be enriched by including recent publications from the last [e.g., two years] to ensure the research is grounded in the most current context. Incorporating works such as [cite specific recent studies] would provide a more comprehensive background.

2. Data Interpretation

In [specific section, e.g., Results, page X], some data interpretations seem speculative without sufficient evidence. Providing additional data or elaborating on how the conclusions were drawn from the results would enhance credibility. For instance, explaining the correlation between [specific variables] in more detail would be beneficial.

3. Clarification of Theoretical Framework

The application of [specific theoretical framework or model] is promising but requires further clarification. Elaborating on how this framework underpins your study and influences your analysis would strengthen the theoretical foundation.

4. Writing Style and Clarity

Certain paragraphs contain complex sentences that might hinder understanding. For example, [provide a specific example, e.g., "In the second paragraph of page 5, the sentence starting with 'Despite the overarching paradigms...' could be simplified for clarity."] Consider revising these sentences for conciseness and readability.

5. Ethical Considerations

The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the ethical approvals obtained for the study. Specifying the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval number and affirming informed consent from participants will address ethical compliance comprehensively.

Suggestions for Enhancement

1. Visual Aids

Incorporating tables, figures, or diagrams to illustrate key findings or conceptual models could enhance reader engagement and understanding. Visual representations of [specific data or concepts] would make complex information more accessible.

2. Future Research Directions

Expanding the discussion on how your findings open avenues for future research would add value. Suggesting specific areas where further investigation is needed can inspire subsequent studies and underscore the significance of your work.

3. Limitations Section

Including a candid acknowledgment of the study's limitations—such as [e.g., sample size, generalizability, potential biases]—demonstrates scholarly rigor and provides context for interpreting the results.