These guidelines are intended to help you assess an article's quality and provide feedback to authors.

1. General Questions for the Manuscript
   • Is the article sufficiently novel, original, and interesting to warrant publication?
   • Does it add to the body of knowledge in the field?
   • Is the research question an important one?
2. Conducting the Review
   • Structure:
     • Is the article clearly laid out, and are all elements included?
     • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
     • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
     • Introduction: Does it accurately describe what the authors hoped to achieve and clearly state the problem being investigated, research questions, and/or hypothesis? Is the relevant research summarized to provide context?
     • Methodology: Do the authors accurately explain how the data was collected or where information was derived from? Are the methodological procedures clearly identified, adequately described, and ordered in a meaningful way? Are new methods explained in detail?
     • Analysis and Results: Do the authors clearly and logically present what they discovered? Has an appropriate analysis been conducted, and are the arguments clearly formulated?
     • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results and do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Are the conclusions plausible?
   • Language: If an article is poorly written, you do not need to correct it in detail, but it would be helpful to bring this to the editor's general attention. If some sentences or passages are incomprehensible, please state the page and the exact line(s).
   • Figures and Tables: Are they an important part of the research? Do they accurately describe the data, and are the statistics correct?
   • References: Have any important works been omitted? Are the references accurate?
   • Ethical Issues: If you suspect an article or parts of it are a substantial copy of another work, please inform the editor, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
3. Report to Authors
   • The editors would appreciate if your report contains:
     • A short summary of the article, summarizing your understanding of it.
     • Key elements of your review, which should address the points outlined in the preceding section.
     • In case of revisions, please clearly identify what is required, if possible with a direct indication of the page and line(s).
     • Please keep your comments courteous, constructive, and free of any personal remarks.
   • Classification of the article:
     1. Accept without revision
     2. Accept but needs minor revision
     3. Accept but needs major revision
     4. Rejected due to poor quality or out of scope