Reviewer Guideline

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are responsible for providing constructive criticism by reading and evaluating manuscripts in their area of expertise, and then offering constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the authors of submitted articles. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the articles, how to enhance the strengths and quality of the papers, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscripts.
Before Reviewing
1. Expertise: Is the article you are asked to review within your area of expertise? If you receive a manuscript that discusses a topic outside your field, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Kindly recommend an alternative reviewer.
2. Time: Do you have time to review this paper? The review process should be completed within two weeks. If you agree but need more time, please inform the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
3. Potential Conflicts of Interest: While conflicts of interest do not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose any conflicts to the editor before reviewing. If you have questions about potential conflicts of interest, feel free to contact the editorial office.
Review Process
When reviewing an article, please consider the following:
1. Title: Does it clearly represent the article?
2. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
3. Introduction: Does it accurately depict the issues presented by the author and clearly state the problem being considered? Generally, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context and explain any research findings or other findings offered for discussion. The research should clarify the experiments, hypotheses, and methods.
Article Content
To determine the originality and suitability of the journal, is there any element of plagiarism greater than 20% in this paper? A quick literature search can use specific tools like Scopus to check for similarities with other sections. If the research has previously been conducted by other authors, does it still qualify for publication? Is the article sufficiently new, in-depth, and interesting for publication? Does it contribute to knowledge? Does the article comply with the journal's standards? Scope - Does the article align with the journal's aims and scope?
4. Methods:
a. Does the author present the research methods in detail, including at a minimum: the research design used, research participants, data collection, and data analysis?
b. Does the author accurately describe how data was collected?
c. Are the theoretical foundations or references used appropriate for this research?
d. Is the exposure design suitable for answering the questions?
e. Is there sufficient information for you to replicate the research?
f. Does the article identify the following procedures?
g. Are there any new methods? If there are new methods, does the author explain them in detail?
h. Is there appropriate sampling?
i. Are the tools and materials used adequately explained?
j. Does the article adequately describe what type of data was recorded and accurately describe the measurements?
5. Results
This is where the authors must explain the findings of their research. It should be presented clearly and in a logical order. You need to consider whether appropriate analyses have been conducted and whether statistical tools were used. If you have better statistical tools to use in this research, please inform the authors, and interpretation does not need to be included in this section. Also, consider whether the objectives of the research have been presented in the research results. The results should be presented based on the characteristics of the research approach used.
6. Discussion:
In presenting the discussion, please consider:
a. Are the claims in this section supported by reasonable and sufficient results?
b. Does the author compare the research findings with previous research results?
c. Do the research findings written in the article contradict previous theories?
7. Conclusion:
a. Does the conclusion explain how further scientific research should be conducted?
b. Does the conclusion state the implications and limitations of the research?
8. References:
IJDMDE adopts the APA 7 writing style. Therefore, reviewers should check whether the authors have written according to APA 7 style.
9. Tables and Figures:
Are the tables or figures appropriately referenced and do they show data that is easily interpretable and understandable by readers?