Reviewers Guidelines

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer
Peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:
• Is the article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise? If you receive a script that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.
• Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
• Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Review Process
When reviewing the article, please consider the following:
• Title: Informative titles that describe the content of the article.
• Abstract: The abstract is written concisely and accurately, covering the research objectives, research methods, results, and conclusions.
• Keywords: Keywords contain basic ideas that represent the field being studied.
• Introduction: Includes a clear, logical, and structured background or context for the research. Research problems have scientific value and testability. The problem-solving plan is clear and supported by relevant theory. Contains clear and specific objectives. Summary of theoretical studies related to the research topic
• Method: Types and designs of systematic and current research. The population and sample/informants/research data sources are representative and consistent with the research theme. Potential data collection instruments generate data that is relevant to the research objectives. In-depth and implementable data analysis. The research method contains accurate and reliable references.
• Results and Discussion: The results of the study are consistent with the type of research. The research results contain critical analysis. The research results contain in-depth discussions supported by relevant theories and the latest research data.
• Conclusion: The conclusion contains answers to the research objectives. Clear and concise conclusions based on results and discussion. Recommendations from the results of the implicative research.
• References: Use of sufficient and relevant literature. Use of primary literature (articles from accredited international and national scientific journals). Reference library updates (last 10 years)

Final Review
• All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential.
• If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor.
• Do not contact the author directly.

Ethical issues:
Plagiarism: If you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor knows the details.

Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.