1-First Line Filtration Checklist (short)

1. Submission Format:
• Manuscript is in the correct file format.
• All required sections are included.
2. Title:
• Title is clear and relevant.
3. Abstract:
• Abstract is present and within word limit.
4. Language Quality:
• Manuscript is readable with clear language.
• Minimal grammatical/spelling errors.
5. Figures & Tables:
• Any included figures/tables are clear and labeled.
• They are referenced in the manuscript.
6. References:
• Citations are present in the text.
• Reference list is provided.
7. Originality:
• Manuscript appears to be original (no obvious plagiarism).
8. Relevance:
• Content aligns with the journal's scope.
9. Ethical Considerations:
• Any necessary ethical approvals or considerations are mentioned.
10. Originality & Plagiarism:
• The manuscript appears to contribute new knowledge or insights.
• There are no signs of plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
11. Conflict of Interest:

• Conflict of interest statement or declaration is present 

2-Manuscript Initial Review Checklist (long)

1. General Adherence:
   • Manuscript adheres to the journal's specific submission guidelines.
   • The manuscript is submitted in the correct format (e.g., .doc, .pdf).
   • All required sections are present (e.g., abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references).
2. Title:
   • The title is clear, concise, and relevant to the content.
   • The title does not contain any abbreviations.
3. Abstract:
   • The abstract provides a brief summary of the research.
   • It is within the word limit set by the journal.
4. Introduction:
   • The introduction clearly states the research problem or objective.
   • Relevant background and literature are provided.
5. Methods:
   • The methodology is clearly described.
   • Research design, participants, instruments, and procedures are adequately detailed.
   • Ethical considerations, if applicable, are addressed.
6. Results:
   • Results are presented clearly and logically.
   • Tables, figures, and graphs, if present, are labeled and referenced in the text.
7. Discussion:
   • The discussion interprets the results in the context of the research question.
   • It relates findings to existing literature.
   • Limitations of the study are addressed.
8. References:
   • All citations in the text are listed in the reference section and vice versa.
   • References follow the journal's citation style.
9. Figures & Tables:
   • All figures and tables are clear and legible.
   • They are appropriately labeled and captioned.
   • They are referenced in the manuscript.
10. Language & Grammar:
    • The manuscript is free from grammatical and spelling errors.
    • The language used is clear and concise.

1. Originality & Plagiarism:

• The manuscript appears to be original work.
• There are no signs of plagiarism.

1. Ethical Considerations:

• If human or animal subjects were used, ethical approval is mentioned.
• Informed consent, if applicable, is addressed.

1. Conflict of Interest:

• Authors have declared any potential conflicts of interest.

1. Supplementary Materials:

• Any supplementary materials (e.g., datasets, additional figures) are provided and referenced.

1. Relevance:

• The manuscript is relevant to the journal's scope and audience.

3-Peer Review Checklist

1. General Assessment:
• Manuscript fits the scope of the journal.
• The research topic is significant and relevant.
2. Title:
• The title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
• It is clear, concise, and free from jargon.
3. Abstract:
• The abstract provides a clear summary of the research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
• It is informative and standalone.
4. Introduction:
• The background is well-presented and relevant to the research question.
• The research objective or hypothesis is clearly stated.
• The introduction provides a rationale for the study.
5. Methods:
• The methodology is appropriate for the research question.
• Procedures and protocols are described in detail.
• Statistical methods, if used, are appropriate and well-described.
• The sample size and study design are justified.
6. Results:
• Results are presented clearly and logically.
• Data is accurate and supports the research question.
• Tables, figures, and graphs are clear, relevant, and properly labeled.
7. Discussion:
• The discussion interprets the results in the context of the research question and existing literature.
• Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed.
• Conclusions are supported by the results.
• Recommendations for future research are provided.
8. References:
• All references cited in the text are listed.
• References are relevant and current.
• The citation style is consistent and adheres to journal guidelines.
9. Ethical Considerations:
• The study adheres to ethical guidelines.
• Informed consent, if applicable, is discussed.
• Any potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.
10. Originality & Plagiarism:

• The manuscript appears to contribute new knowledge or insights.
• There are no signs of plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

    11. Clarity & Style:

• The manuscript is well-organized and flows logically.
• The language is clear, concise, and free from jargon.
• Terminology is consistent throughout the manuscript.

   12. Recommendation:

• Accept as is.
• Accept with minor revisions.
• Accept with major revisions.
• Reject.

4-Peer review rubric: 

1. Excellent: Fully meets the criteria with outstanding quality.
2. Good: Meets the criteria with minor shortcomings.
3. Satisfactory: Meets the basic criteria but has notable areas for improvement.
4. Poor: Does not meet the criteria and requires significant improvement.
5. Unacceptable: Completely fails to meet the criteria.

Criteria	Excellent	Good	Satisfactory	Poor	Unacceptable
General Assessment	Fits journal's scope perfectly; highly significant topic	Fits journal's scope; relevant topic	Somewhat aligns with journal's scope; moderately relevant topic	Barely aligns with journal's scope; low relevance	Does not fit journal's scope; irrelevant topic
Title	Precise, clear, and perfectly reflective of content	Clear and mostly reflective of content	Somewhat clear; slightly vague	Unclear and not very reflective of content	Very unclear; not at all reflective of content
Abstract	Comprehensive, clear, standalone, and perfectly summarizes research	Mostly clear and summarizes research well	Somewhat clear; misses some key points	Vague and misses major points	Very vague; does not summarize research
Introduction	Perfect background, clear objectives, strong rationale	Good background, clear objectives	Adequate background; objectives somewhat clear	Weak background; vague objectives	No clear background; no clear objectives
Methods	Highly detailed, appropriate, and justified	Detailed and mostly appropriate	Somewhat detailed; minor issues in appropriateness	Lacks detail; several issues in appropriateness	Very vague; not appropriate
Results	Clear, logical, accurate, and fully supports research	Mostly clear and supports research	Somewhat clear; some data issues	Unclear; major data issues	Very unclear; data does not support research
Discussion	Comprehensive interpretation, strong conclusions, clear strengths/limitations	Good interpretation and conclusions	Adequate interpretation; some weak conclusions	Weak interpretation; unclear conclusions	No clear interpretation; no conclusions
References	Perfectly cited, highly relevant, and current	Mostly well-cited and relevant	Adequately cited; some relevance issues	Poorly cited; many irrelevant references	Not cited properly; mostly irrelevant
Ethical Considerations	Perfect adherence to ethics; clear disclosures	Good adherence; minor issues in disclosures	Adequate adherence; some disclosure issues	Poor adherence; major disclosure issues	No adherence; no disclosures
Originality & Plagiarism	Highly original; no signs of plagiarism	Mostly original; very minor signs of self-plagiarism	Somewhat original; some signs of self-plagiarism	Not very original; signs of plagiarism	Not original at all; clear plagiarism
Clarity & Style	Perfectly clear, concise, and consistent	Mostly clear and consistent	Somewhat clear; minor inconsistencies	Unclear; major inconsistencies	Very unclear; completely inconsistent
Recommendation	Ready for immediate acceptance	Accept with minor revisions	Accept with major revisions	Requires significant revisions; consider rejection	Not suitable for publication