Reviewer Guidelines

IJEA Manuscript Review Checklist

1. Overall Presentation & Coherence

Does the paper present a cohesive, logical argument? Are the ideas structured and presented clearly?
Comments & Suggestions:

2. Quality of Writing

Is the writing concise, professional, and easy to follow? Does the title accurately and effectively characterize the manuscript's content?
Comments & Suggestions (Title & Prose):

3. Manuscript Length & Balance

What portions of the paper should be expanded, condensed, summarized, combined, or removed to improve balance and focus?
Comments & Suggestions:

4. Title Specifics

Is the title concise? Does it omit implicit terms and, where possible, state the main result or conclusion? Are abbreviations avoided?

  • Yes

  • No – Requires Revision
    Specific Feedback:

5. Abstract

*Does the abstract clearly contain the following four elements in a single paragraph (150-250 words)?*

  1. Aim/Purpose of the study.

  2. Methodology employed.

  3. Key Results/Findings.

  4. Main Conclusion.

  • Yes

  • No – Elements Missing
    Specific Feedback:

6. Introduction

Does the Introduction clearly address the following?

  • Background and context of the study.

  • State-of-the-art / Literature review justifying novelty.

  • Clear gap analysis and novelty statement.

  • Hypothesis/Problem Statement (if applicable).

  • Approach to solving the problem.

  • Clear Aims & Objectives of the study.
    Comments & Suggestions:

7. Method

Is the methodology described with sufficient clarity and detail for the research to be replicated?

  • Clearly describes procedures, not just definitions.

  • Details location, participants/subjects, instruments, and materials.

  • Explains data collection and analysis procedures.

  • Yes, replicable

  • No, requires more detail
    Specific Feedback:

8. Results and Discussion

Evaluate the presentation and interpretation of the findings.

  • Results are presented using processed data (figures/tables) with clear, supportive descriptions.

  • Discussion directly links results to the original objectives/questions from the Introduction.

  • Discussion compares and contrasts findings with existing literature.

  • Provides a scientific interpretation for each key result.

  • Discusses implications of the research.

  • Acknowledges limitations of the study.

  • Suggests future research directions.
    Comments & Suggestions:

9. Conclusion

Does the conclusion effectively synthesize the work?

  • Directly answers the research objectives.

  • May include implications or recommendations.

  • Written in paragraph form (not bullet points).

  • Yes, effective

  • No, requires revision
    Specific Feedback:

10. References

Please assess the reference list.

  • Reference Management:

    • Appears to use a reference manager (Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote, etc.).

    • Formatting is inconsistent, suggesting manual entry.

  • Currency:

    • Majority of references are from within the last 10 years.

    • Contains a significant number of outdated sources (>10 years).

  • Source Quality:

    • At least 80% of references are from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    • Over-reliance on non-journal sources (e.g., websites, reports, conferences).

  • Completeness & Accuracy:

    • All in-text citations are listed in the references.

    • All references are cited in the text.

    • Format follows APA 7th Edition guidelines.
      Comments & Suggestions:

Overall Recommendation

(Please select one)

  • Accept as is (No further revisions required)

  • Minor Revisions (Accept after addressing specific, straightforward points above)

  • Major Revisions (Needs significant improvement; requires a second round of review)

  • Reject (Fundamental flaws in methodology, novelty, or presentation)

Additional Confidential Comments to the Editor (if any):