Peer Review Checklist

S. No

Particulars  

Details Description

1.

Title

Does the title reflect the main subject/hypothesis of the manuscript? Is the title complete?
 

2.

Abstract

Does the abstract summarize and reflect the work described in the manuscript?

3.

Keywords

Do the keywords reflect the focus of the manuscript?

4.

Background

Does the manuscript adequately describe the background, present status, and significance of the study?

5.

Methods

Does the manuscript describe methods (e.g., experiments, data analysis, surveys, clinical trials, etc.) in adequate detail? Are the study methods are sound and appropriate? Is statistical analysis appropriate.

6.

Results

Are the research objectives achieved by the experiments used in this study? Does the manuscript meet the requirements of Biostatistics?

7.

Discussion

Does the manuscript interpret the findings adequately and appropriately, highlighting the key points concisely, clearly, and logically? Are the findings and their applicability /relevance to the literature stated in a clear and definite manner? Is the discussion accurate and does it discuss the paper’s scientific significance and/or relevance to clinical practice sufficiently?
 

8.

Illustrations and tables

Are the figures, diagrams, and tables sufficient, good quality, and appropriately illustrative of the paper contents? Do figures require labeling with arrows, asterisks, etc., and better legends?
 

9.

References

Does the manuscript cite appropriately the latest, important and authoritative references in the introduction and discussion sections?

10.

Quality of manuscript organization and presentation

Is the manuscript well, concisely, and coherently organized and presented? Is the style, language, and grammar accurate and appropriate?
 

11.

Research methods and reporting

The article is of interest to members of the education research community?

12.

Ethics statements

For all manuscripts, author(s) must submit the related formal ethics documents that were approved by their local ethical review committee. Did the manuscript meet the requirements of ethics?