JOSERI

When reviewing manuscripts submitted to Journal of Science Education Research and Innovation (JOSERI), reviewers are asked to assess the following elements to ensure the quality and integrity of the research. Please provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Your comments should be clear, concise, and respectful, focusing on both strengths and areas for improvement.

1. Presentation

   • Does the manuscript follow a logical structure and flow smoothly from one section to another?
   • Are tables, figures, and diagrams clear, appropriately labeled, and effectively used to support the text?
   • Is the formatting consistent with the journal’s guidelines?

2. Writing

   • Is the manuscript written in clear, concise, and grammatically correct English?
   • Does the author avoid jargon, or when necessary, provide sufficient explanation for technical terms?
   • Is the tone appropriate for an academic paper, and does the writing style maintain objectivity?

3. Length

   • Is the manuscript’s length appropriate for the subject matter?
   • Are any sections unnecessarily long or too brief?
   • Are there any redundancies or irrelevant details that could be removed to improve readability?

4. Title

   • Is the title clear, concise, and accurately reflective of the content of the manuscript?
   • Does the title capture the main contribution or focus of the research?
   • Is it engaging and likely to attract readers' attention?

5. Abstract

   • Does the abstract provide a clear summary of the research, including the purpose, methods, key findings, and conclusions?
   • Is the abstract informative enough to allow readers to understand the essence of the paper without reading the full text?
   • Is the abstract within the journal's word limit?

6. Introduction

   • Does the introduction clearly state the research problem or question?
   • Is there sufficient background information and context to justify the study?
   • Does the author provide a clear rationale for why the research is important and how it contributes to the field?
   • Are the objectives or hypotheses clearly articulated?

7. Method

   • Are the methods described in sufficient detail for replication?
   • Is the research design appropriate to address the research question or hypothesis?
   • Is the sample size adequate and the selection method sound?
   • Are the data collection tools, procedures, and analysis methods appropriate and clearly explained?
   • Are ethical considerations, if applicable, addressed?

8. Results

   • Are the results presented clearly and logically?
   • Are the results consistent with the methods and analysis described?
   • Are there any discrepancies or issues with the data that need to be addressed?
   • Do the tables and figures enhance the understanding of the results, and are they correctly labeled and referenced in the text?

9. Discussion

   • Does the discussion interpret the results in the context of the research question and the existing literature?
   • Are the implications of the findings adequately explored?
   • Does the author acknowledge any limitations of the study and suggest possible areas for further research?
   • Is there a balance between presenting strengths and limitations?

10. Conclusion

    • Does the conclusion effectively summarize the main findings and their implications?
    • Does the conclusion tie back to the research objectives or hypotheses stated in the introduction?
    • Are there any actionable recommendations or insights for future research or practical application?