Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers are responsible for critically reading and evaluating manuscripts within their field of expertise, providing constructive advice, and delivering honest feedback to the authors. Reviewers should objectively discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, suggest paths for improvement, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

⚠️ Critical Pre-Review Checklist

Before accepting the invitation to review, please evaluate the following three core constraints:

  • Expertise Alignment: Is the manuscript strictly in accordance with your field? If not, please notify the editor immediately and consider recommending an alternative reviewer.
  • Time Availability: The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you require a longer period, please notify the editor as soon as possible.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Disclose all potential conflicts of interest to the editor before opening the full text. When in doubt, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Manuscript Evaluation Matrix

When conducting your formal evaluation via the OJS portal, please assess each section according to the following quality standards:

General Content & Ethics

  • Plagiarism Check: Check for elements of plagiarism. The manuscript must not exceed a 5% similarity limit over specific core content outside citations. Reviewers may conduct a quick verification using tools like Scopus.
  • Novelty & Contribution: Is the study deeply constructed, interesting, fairly new, and contributing significantly to the current body of knowledge?
  • Scope Fit: Is the article perfectly aligned with the objectives and scope of JOFIET?

Structural Completeness

  • Title & Abstract: Does the title clearly illustrate the article? Does the abstract systematically consist of: 1) aim of the study; 2) method; 3) result/finding; 4) significance; and 5) conclusion?
  • Introduction: Does it accurately describe the background, State-of-the-Art (relevant research to justify novelty), Gap Analysis (novelty statement), approach to resolve the problem, and the explicit aim of the study?
  • Method: Is the method written with enough clarity so other researchers can exactly replicate the experiment? Does it describe the location, participants, research instruments, and data analysis framework?
  • Result and Discussion: Are the data processed into formal tables or figures (not raw data)? Are findings scientifically interpreted, compared with what other investigators have reported, and are research limitations and future areas of expansion clearly described?
  • Conclusion: Does it directly answer the core research objectives? Is it written clearly in a single paragraph without any bullet points or numbering?