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).
Section 4: Confidential Comments to the Editor
(Comments in this section will NOT be shared with the author) [Text Box]
🚦 Decision-Making Diagram
