Reviewer Guidelines

As a reviewer for Civic Synergy: Journal of Multidisciplinary Service and Empowerment, we ask that you provide constructive, impartial feedback on submissions. Below are the key criteria to consider during your review:

  1. Presentation
    Assess the overall presentation and organization of the manuscript. The content should be clear, logically structured, and professionally formatted. Verify that tables, figures, and illustrations are effectively presented and enhance the reader’s understanding.

  2. Writing
    Evaluate the quality and clarity of the writing. The manuscript should be written in clear, grammatically correct English, avoiding jargon where possible. Ensure that terminology is used consistently and appropriately throughout the text.

  3. Length
    Consider whether the manuscript’s length is appropriate for its content. The paper should be concise yet sufficiently detailed to convey its main arguments, findings, and implications. Excessive or unnecessary sections should be noted.

  4. Title
    The title should be descriptive, informative, and accurately reflect the content and scope of the study. It should be concise and engaging, giving readers a clear indication of the study’s focus.

  5. Abstract
    Review the abstract to ensure it provides a succinct summary of the main objectives, methods, results, and conclusions of the study. The abstract should be engaging, accurately represent the article’s content, and help the reader understand the study’s significance.

  6. Introduction
    Evaluate whether the introduction clearly defines the research problem and provides sufficient background information. It should introduce the study’s objectives, its relevance, and any existing gaps in the literature it aims to address.

  7. Method
    Assess the appropriateness and rigor of the research methodology. The methods should be described in enough detail for replication and should align with the study’s objectives. Ensure that any limitations are acknowledged.

  8. Results
    Review the clarity and accuracy of the results section. Data should be presented in a clear and logical order, with relevant tables or figures to illustrate key findings. Ensure that the results are presented without interpretation in this section.

  9. Discussion
    The discussion should interpret the study’s findings in the context of existing literature, highlight the implications, and acknowledge any limitations. It should also suggest possible directions for future research, where relevant.

  10. Conclusion
    The conclusion should succinctly summarize the key findings and their significance. It should provide a clear and impactful final statement that reflects the study’s contributions to the field and emphasizes its practical or theoretical implications.