Reviewer Guidelines

This guide sets out what reviewers should check in each part of a manuscript submitted to PIJME. Work through the manuscript section by section using the checklist below, and use these points as the basis for your written comments and recommendation to the Editor.
Overall Presentation and Writing
Presentation

  • Does the paper relate a cohesive argument?
  • Are the ideas clearly presented?

Writing

  • Does the title characterize the manuscript?
  • Is the writing concise and easy to follow?

Length

  • What portions of the paper should be expanded?
  • What portions should be removed?
  • What portions should be condensed or summarized?
  • What portions should be combined?

Section-by-Section Checklist
Title

  • Is the title concise, omitting terms that are implicit?
  • Where possible, does it state the main result or conclusion of the manuscript?
  • Are abbreviations avoided within the title?

Abstract
Check that the abstract consists of all four elements:

  • Aim of the study.
  • Method
  • Result or finding.
  • Conclusion

Introduction
Check that the Introduction clearly and respectively describes:

  • The background of the study.
  • State of the art / relevant research that justifies the novelty of the manuscript.
  • Gap analysis and novelty statement.
  • Hypothesis or problem statement (optional).
  • The approach used to resolve the problem.
  • The aim of the study.

Method

  • Is the method written clearly enough that other researchers could replicate the experiment or research with the same result?
  • Does it describe how to conduct the research, not just define terms?
  • Are the location, participants, research instrument, and data analysis described?

Result and Discussion

  • Is the data presented processed (not raw data) into a table or figure, with a supportive, easy-to-follow description?
  • Are the results related back to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction?
  • Does the author describe how the results compare with what other investigators have reported, and note any differences?
  • Does the author provide a scientific interpretation for each result or finding presented?
  • Does the author describe the implications of the research?
  • Does the author describe the limitations of the research or drawbacks of the method or position?
  • Does the author describe further needs or areas for research, or ways to expand the ideas?

Conclusion
Check that the Conclusion:

  • Answers the objectives of the research.
  • Includes an implication or recommendation (optional).
  • Is written in a paragraph, not as a bullet or numbered list.