Download ACOMS Manual 

As a reviewer, your evaluation is vital to ensuring the quality and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Your insights will help shape the direction of the journal's content and contribute to advancing knowledge in the field.

Evaluation Template for Journal Manuscript

Overall Rating:

Please assess the following aspects using the scale provided: Poor, Below Average, Average, Good, Excellent.



General Questions:

Originality:

• Does the paper introduce fresh perspectives in [mention specific areas/topics], contributing to its uniqueness and suitability for publication?
• Does the study build upon existing research with novel elements, adding value to the field's understanding?

Significance of Contributions:

• Does the research question addressed hold substantial importance, and do the findings offer valuable insights justifying publication?
• Do the paper's findings contribute meaningfully to the field, enriching the current body of knowledge?

Content Logic and Professionalism:

•  Is the paper's structure clear and coherent, aiding reader comprehension?
• Do the authors effectively present their hypothesis, methodology, and findings, enhancing the paper's professionalism?

Writing Style and Presentation:  

• Does the writing style effectively communicate ideas and engage readers?
• Are there some passages that could be clarified for better reader understanding? [mention specific examples]

 

Confidence in Assessment:

•  Does your evaluation draw from expertise in the subject area?
  
• While you are familiar with the literature, does awareness of the latest developments have any limitations?
  




 

Recommendation: 

Based on your evaluation, please provide a recommendation based on the options below:

Accept: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.

Minor Revisions: The paper has potential but minor revisions are necessary to enhance its quality and ensure accuracy.

Major Revisions: The paper has potential, but significant revisions are required to address substantial issues and improve its overall quality.

Reject: The paper is not suitable for publication due to fundamental issues or lack of alignment with the journal's scope and standards.

Confidential Comments to the Editor:

Please provide confidential comments to the editor regarding the paper's strengths, weaknesses, and overall suitability for publication. Your insights will aid the editorial decision-making process.

Comments to the Author (Example):

The manuscript presents a commendable level of originality, particularly within the context of [mention specific areas/topics]. The novel aspects introduced in these domains contribute positively to the manuscript's suitability for publication in JISTaP. By building upon existing scholarly discourse, the manuscript introduces fresh perspectives that enrich the field's understanding and knowledge.

The contributions put forth by the manuscript are notably significant, especially in terms of [mention specific findings and their implications]. The manuscript addresses a research question of considerable importance within the discipline, yielding findings that add value to the scholarly conversation. These findings expand the boundaries of existing knowledge, presenting insights that merit dissemination in JISTaP.

The overall structure of the manuscript is well-organized. Consider refining the transitions between sections [mention specific sections]. The manuscript follows a coherent structure that aids in reader comprehension. However, enhancing the transitions between specific sections could further improve the overall flow, guiding the reader seamlessly through the manuscript's content.

The writing style effectively communicates ideas, though some passages could benefit from additional clarity [mention specific examples]. The writing style consistently maintains engagement and clarity, effectively conveying the intended content. However, certain passages might require further elaboration to ensure that readers grasp the concepts fully. More detailed explanations in [mention specific examples] will enhance reader understanding.

Addressing the outlined revisions before publication would strengthen its scholarly impact in JISTaP. The manuscript exhibits potential in its current form. By attending to the suggested revisions, particularly in the identified areas of [mention specific sections or aspects], the manuscript can be elevated to a higher standard, well-prepared for publication, and contribute positively to the field's body of knowledge.