• Contributions de l'auteur et pertinence dans le domaine , excellentes compétences en rédaction
technique et qualité de la conception de l'étude . faire la lumière sur un problème non résolu qui touche beaucoup de gens • La perspicacité est utile aux personnes qui prennent des décisions , en particulier des décisions organisationnelles à long terme ou, dans notre domaine particulier, des décisions familiales • La perspicacité est utilisée pour développer un nouveau cadre ou un nouvelle théorie ou avancement d'une théorie existante • La perspicacité suscite de nouvelles questions importantes •
Les méthodes utilisées pour explorer la question sont appropriées (par exemple, collecte de données et interprétation des données)
• Les méthodes utilisées sont appliquées avec rigueur et expliquent pourquoi et comment les données étayent les conclusions
• L'interconnexion des travaux antérieurs dans le domaine concerné ou de domaines interdisciplinaires est rendue plus claire pour les interprétations de l'article.
L'article raconte une bonne histoire : Bien écrit et facile à comprendre, les arguments sont logiques et non contradictoires en interne
• Does not fall within the Aims and Scope: This is a common mistake. The emphasis of the manuscript is not in the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of the targeted journal are not followed.
• Fails the technical screening (Poor English grammar, style, and syntax): The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized. The article is currently under review process at another journal. The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures. The English is not proficient for the peer review process; the figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read. References are incomplete or very old.
• Insufficient/Incomplete data: It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the studys question. The article contains observations but is not a full study. It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.
• Methods/Analysis data is seen to be defective: Details are insufficient to repeat the results. The design of study, instruments used, and procedures followed should clear. But in some cases it could be better to put too much information into the methods section rather than to put too little. The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.
• Over interpretation of results: Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and honest approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to increase the chances of a manuscript to be accepted. Identify possible partial and stunning variables, both during the preliminary phase of the study and the elucidation of the results. Describe the experimental results briefly.
• Incomprehensible/Unsatisfactory data: Make tables and graphs easy to understand. Some editors start looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures to determine if the manuscript is worth considering. The language, structure, or figures are very poor that the merit can't be analyzed. Have a native English speaker to read and assess the quality of the paper.
• Conclusions not supported by data: Make sure your conclusions are not overemphasize, are supported, and answer the studys query. Make sure to contribute alternative clarification, and do not simply restate the results. The conclusions should not ignore large portions of the literature.
• Simply a small extension of a different paper, inaccurate literature: Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only list references relevant to the study. Findings are incremental and do not advance the field. The work is clearly but larger part of a study is chopped to make possible number of articles.
• Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address reviewers suggestions:En tenant compte des suggestions des examinateurs, la révision de votre manuscrit se traduira toujours par un meilleur manuscrit pour la publication. Si l'éditeur suggère d'évaluer une révision, cela signifie que le manuscrit peut être publiable si les préoccupations des examinateurs peuvent être traitées de manière satisfaisante.