ARJST Peer Review Evaluation Form

This form is what your Associate Editors will send to external experts to evaluate a manuscript. A structured form ensures that reviewers provide constructive, objective feedback rather than vague comments, which helps you maintain the high quality of ARJST.

📝 ARJST Peer Review Evaluation Form

Manuscript ID: [e.g., ARJST-2026-001]

Manuscript Title: [Insert Title]

Reviewer Name: [Anonymized for Author]

Section 1: Quantitative Assessment

Please rate the following criteria on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent):

Evaluation Criteria	Score (1-5)
Originality: Does the paper add new knowledge to the field?	[ ]
Methodological Rigor: Is the research design sound and valid?	[ ]
Data Analysis: Are the results clearly presented and interpreted?	[ ]
Literary Quality: Is the writing clear, concise, and professional?	[ ]
APA Compliance: Are citations and references correctly formatted?	[ ]
Relevance: Does the topic align with ARJST’s Aims & Scope?	[ ]

Section 2: Qualitative Comments (Detailed Feedback)

1. Strengths of the Manuscript: (Please highlight what the author has done well) [Text Box]

2. Weaknesses & Areas for Improvement: (Please list specific sections that require clarification or revision) [Text Box]

3. Specific Suggestions for the Author: (Actionable steps to improve the paper) [Text Box]

Section 3: Final Recommendation

Please select one of the following:

[ ] Accept As Is: The paper is ready for publication without changes.
[ ] Minor Revisions: The paper requires small corrections (typos, citation fixes).
[ ] Major Revisions: The paper needs significant changes (re-analysis, additional literature).
[ ] Reject & Resubmit: The paper has potential but requires a total rewrite.
[ ] Reject: The paper is not suitable for ARJST (methodological flaws or out of scope).