Reviewer Guidelines 

• Does the manuscript present original findings that have not been previously published?
• Are the research methods clearly described and appropriate for the study question?
• Are the experimental design, data collection, and analysis methods robust and replicable?
• Are the results presented in a clear and logical manner, with appropriate use of figures and tables?
• Do the results convincingly support the conclusions drawn by the authors?
• Does the discussion section adequately interpret the findings in the context of existing literature?
• Are the implications of the findings for future research and practice clearly articulated?
• Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and free from grammatical errors?
• Does the research adhere to ethical standards, including proper approval for studies involving humans or animals, and appropriate data handling and reporting?

• Does the manuscript present new and original findings that have not been previously published?
• Does the research address a significant question or problem within the field?
• Are the research methods clearly described and appropriate for the study question?
• Are the experimental design, data collection, and analysis methods robust and replicable?
• Are the results presented in a clear and logical manner, with appropriate use of figures and tables?
• Do the results convincingly support the conclusions drawn by the authors?
• Does the discussion section adequately interpret the findings in the context of existing literature?
• Are the implications of the findings for future research and practice clearly articulated?
• Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and free from grammatical errors?
• Does the research adhere to ethical standards, including proper approval for studies involving humans or animals, and appropriate data handling and reporting?

• Does the manuscript present a new and original hypothesis or theory that has not been previously proposed in existing literature?
• Is the hypothesis or theory clearly and logically presented?
• Are the proposed hypotheses or theories testable? Does the manuscript outline potential methods or approaches for validating the hypothesis or theory?
• Does the introduction and background section provide a clear context and justification for the proposed hypothesis or theory?
• Is the relevance of the hypothesis or theory to the existing body of knowledge clearly articulated?
• Are the arguments and interpretations presented in the manuscript well-supported by existing literature, logical reasoning, or empirical evidence?
• If original data is included, is the methodology sound, and are the results appropriately analyzed and interpreted?
• Does the hypothesis or theory have the potential to significantly advance knowledge in the field?
• Are the implications and potential impact of the hypothesis or theory clearly discussed?

• Does the case study address a significant and relevant problem or question within the field?
• Does it provide unique insights or contribute to the understanding of a particular phenomenon or practice?
• Is the case clearly and comprehensively described, including relevant background information and context?
• Are the circumstances and conditions under which the case occurred well-documented?
• Are the methods used to analyze the case appropriate and rigorously applied?
• Is the data collection and analysis process clearly described and justified?
• Are the findings and insights derived from the case well-supported by the data and analysis?
• Are the implications and potential for generalizing the findings to other contexts or cases clearly discussed?
• Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and free from grammatical errors?
• Does the case study adhere to ethical standards, including confidentiality and consent if human subjects are involved?

• Does the data set provide new and original information that is relevant to the field?
• Is the data set likely to be useful for other researchers or practitioners?
• Are the methods used to collect the data clearly described and appropriate for the research question or objective?
• Are the data collection procedures and any instruments or tools used adequately detailed and justified?
• Are there clear descriptions of how data quality and integrity were ensured, including any validation, cleaning, or preprocessing steps?
• Is there evidence that the data set is reliable, accurate, and free from significant biases or errors?
• Is the data set accompanied by comprehensive metadata and documentation that explains the variables, units, and any relevant context?
• Is the data set accessible to other researchers, with clear instructions on how to obtain and use it?
• Does the data set comply with ethical standards, including obtaining necessary consents and ensuring confidentiality if human subjects are involved?
• Are there any legal or licensing restrictions on the data set, and are these clearly communicated?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?

• Does the article present a new or significantly improved method that addresses a gap or limitation in existing methodologies?
• Is the method likely to advance the field or provide new capabilities for researchers or practitioners?
• Are the steps involved in the method clearly and comprehensively described?
• Is the method reproducible, with sufficient detail provided so that other researchers can replicate it?
• Has the method been validated through appropriate tests, experiments, or case studies?
• Are the results of these validations clearly presented and discussed, demonstrating the method’s effectiveness and reliability?
• Are the advantages of the method over existing approaches clearly articulated?
• Are any limitations or potential drawbacks of the method discussed, along with suggestions for how they might be addressed?
• Is the manuscript well-organized, clearly written, and free from grammatical errors?
• Does the article adhere to ethical standards, including proper handling of any data or subjects involved in the validation process?

• Does the code provide a new or significantly improved tool or solution that addresses a gap or limitation in existing software or methodologies?
• Is the code likely to be useful and applicable to other researchers or practitioners in the field?
• Is the code accompanied by comprehensive documentation that explains its purpose, functionality, installation, and usage?
• Are there clear examples or tutorials provided to help users understand how to implement and use the code effectively?
• Has the code been tested for robustness and reliability through appropriate tests or case studies?
• Are any bugs, limitations, or potential issues with the code identified and addressed?
• Is the code written in an efficient and optimized manner, ensuring good performance and scalability?
• Are there any benchmarks or performance evaluations provided to demonstrate the efficiency of the code?
• Is the code accessible to other researchers, with clear instructions on how to obtain and use it?
• Is the code reproducible, allowing others to replicate the results presented in the article?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?

Stage One Peer Review: (Assessment of the Research Proposal):

• Is the research question clearly articulated and of significant interest to the field?
• Are the hypotheses well-defined, testable, and grounded in existing literature?
• Is the study design appropriate for addressing the research question and testing the hypotheses?
• Are the methods clearly described, including sample size calculations, controls, and data collection procedures?
• Is there a detailed and transparent analysis plan, including predefined statistical analyses and criteria for interpreting results?
• Are any potential confounding variables identified, and are strategies for controlling them clearly described?
• Is the proposed research feasible within the time frame and resources available?
• Does the research adhere to ethical standards, including obtaining necessary approvals and ensuring participant confidentiality and informed consent?

Stage Two Peer Review: (Assessment of the Completed Research):

• Was the research conducted as per the approved Stage One protocol, without unapproved deviations?
• Are any deviations from the protocol justified and transparently reported?
• Are the data and results presented in a clear, logical, and comprehensive manner?
• Are the results reliable and supported by the data, with appropriate statistical analyses?
• Are the conclusions drawn by the authors well-supported by the data and analyses?
• Do the results answer the original research question and test the hypotheses as intended?
• Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
• Does the discussion adequately interpret the findings in the context of existing literature?
• Are the implications of the findings for future research and practice clearly articulated?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?

• Is the research question clearly articulated and of significant interest to the field?
• Are the hypotheses well-defined, testable, and grounded in existing literature?
• Is the overall study design appropriate for addressing the research question and testing the hypotheses?
• Are the methods, including sample size calculations, participant selection criteria, and data collection procedures, clearly described and appropriate?
• Is there a comprehensive and transparent analysis plan, including predefined statistical analyses and criteria for interpreting results?
• Are any potential confounding variables identified, and are strategies for controlling them clearly described?
• Does the study adhere to ethical standards, including obtaining necessary approvals and ensuring participant confidentiality and informed consent?
• Is the study protocol well-organized, clearly written, and free from grammatical errors?
• Are all necessary details provided in a way that makes the protocol accessible and understandable to other researchers who may wish to replicate the study?

• Does the review article have a clear and well-defined scope that is relevant to the field?
• Is the focus of the review sufficiently narrow to provide an in-depth analysis yet broad enough to cover the essential aspects of the topic?
• Does the review article cover the relevant literature comprehensively, including the most recent and significant studies?
• Is there a balanced representation of different perspectives and findings within the field, avoiding selective reporting?
• Does the review provide a coherent synthesis of the existing evidence, identifying patterns, trends, and gaps in the literature?
• Are the interpretations and conclusions drawn from the evidence logical and well-supported by the cited studies?
• Is the review article well-structured, with a logical flow of information and clear sections?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?
• Does the review article discuss the implications of the findings for theory, practice, and future research?
• Are specific recommendations for future research clearly articulated, highlighting areas where further investigation is needed?

• Is the research question or objective of the systematic review clearly articulated and of significant interest to the field?
• Is the scope of the review appropriate and well-defined, with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies?
• Is the literature search strategy comprehensive, using multiple databases and sources to identify relevant studies?
• Are the search terms, databases, and search period clearly described, allowing for reproducibility?
• Is the process for selecting studies and extracting data clearly described, including criteria for inclusion and exclusion?
• Are measures taken to minimize bias, such as independent screening by multiple reviewers and a clear method for resolving discrepancies?
• Is the quality of the included studies assessed using appropriate tools or criteria, and are the results of this assessment clearly presented?
• Is the synthesis of evidence logical, comprehensive, and appropriately conducted, with a clear distinction between different levels of evidence and study quality?
• Are the results of the systematic review clearly presented, including summary statistics, tables, and figures as appropriate?
• Are the conclusions well-supported by the evidence, and are the implications for practice, policy, and future research clearly discussed?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?

• Is the policy issue or question clearly articulated and of significant relevance to the field or society?
• Does the review provide sufficient context and background to understand the importance and scope of the policy issue?
• Does the review comprehensively cover the relevant literature, including key studies, reports, and policy documents?
• Is there a balanced representation of different perspectives and findings, avoiding selective reporting and bias?
• Does the review provide a rigorous analysis and synthesis of the policy evidence, identifying key patterns, trends, and gaps?
• Are the methodologies used to analyze policy impacts and outcomes clearly described and appropriate for the review's objectives?
• Are the implications of the review's findings for policy clearly articulated, with well-supported recommendations for policy action or change?
• Do the recommendations consider feasibility, potential barriers, and possible unintended consequences?
• Is the review article well-structured, with a logical flow of information and clear sections?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?

• Is the research question or objective clearly articulated and of significant interest to the conference audience?
• Does the article address a relevant and timely topic within the field?
• Is the study design and methodology appropriate for addressing the research question?
• Are the methods, including data collection and analysis procedures, clearly described and rigorously applied?
• Are the results presented in a clear and logical manner, with appropriate use of tables, figures, and statistical analyses?
• Are the results interpreted accurately, and do they directly address the research question?
• Does the article make a significant contribution to the field, advancing knowledge, theory, or practice?
• Are the implications of the findings for future research, policy, or practice clearly discussed?
• Is the article well-organized, with a logical flow of information and clear sections ?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?

• What is the rationale for replicating the original study? Is the purpose of the replication clearly articulated and justified? 
• How well does the replication study contextualize the original research? Does it provide sufficient background and explanation for why the replication is necessary?
• Are the methods used in the replication study consistent with those of the original study? If there are any deviations, are they adequately justified and documented?
• Are the data collection and analysis procedures transparent and consistent with the original study? Is there sufficient detail to assess the validity of the replication?
• Are the results presented in a clear and logical manner, with appropriate use of tables, figures, and statistical analyses?
• Does the replication study provide enough information for others to reproduce the study? Are all necessary materials, data, and protocols accessible?
• How do the results of the replication study compare with those of the original study? Are any differences or similarities clearly explained, and are their implications discussed? 
• What is the significance of the replication study’s findings? Do they confirm, extend, or challenge the original findings? How do they contribute to the field?
• Are there any ethical concerns regarding the replication study? Is there appropriate acknowledgment of the original study and its authors?
• What are the limitations of the replication study? Are any challenges encountered during the replication process discussed and addressed?
• Is the writing clear, concise, and free from grammatical errors?