This form supports a double-blind peer review process, in which the manuscript's substance is evaluated across novelty, reference recency, and methodological quality/depth of analysis. Confidentiality is central to the process: the manuscript given to reviewers does not display the author's identity, and the author is never told who the reviewer is. To protect this, reviewers are asked not to write their name, affiliation, or any other identifying detail anywhere on the form including in the comment boxes.
The form opens with an identification section completed solely by the journal's editorial staff, not by the author or reviewer. It records the manuscript's code number, the reviewer's code, the manuscript's title, its field of study, the type of manuscript (research article, literature review, or case study), and the relevant dates, when the review began and when it is due. Keeping this section under editorial control is what preserves anonymity on both sides.
The substantive evaluation then unfolds across three weighted aspects:
The first aspect is novelty, worth 40% of the total score. Here the reviewer judges whether the manuscript identifies a clear research gap, whether its ideas or methods are genuinely original compared with similar studies, whether it meaningfully advances theory or practice in the field, and whether it states its novelty clearly against the current state of the art. The reviewer records a qualitative rating (from Very Poor to Very Good), writes a short justification, and then assigns a numeric score from 0 to 100, which is multiplied by the 40% weight.
The second aspect is reference recency, worth 30%. This looks at how much of the cited literature is primary and published within the last five to ten years, how relevant the references are to the paper's topic, how diverse and reputable the sources are, and whether the number of references matches the depth of the discussion. Again, the reviewer gives a qualitative rating, a written justification, and a weighted numeric score.
The third aspect is methodological quality and depth of analysis, also worth 30%. It asks whether the method fits the research objective, whether the procedure is clear enough to be replicated, whether the data analysis technique and interpretation are sound, and whether the discussion argues its case with real depth. The same three-part rating structure applies.
A summary table then pulls the three scores together, multiplying each by its weight to produce a total out of 100. Finally, the reviewer gives an overall recommendation, accept without revision, accept with minor revision, accept with major revision, or reject, along with two separate comment fields: one with feedback for the author (still anonymous), and one confidential note meant only for the editor and never shared with the author. The form closes with the reviewer's code and the date it was completed.
