Paper Code:

Titile of the manuscript ________________________________

Reviewer: Reviewer1/Reviewer 2

Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts


Part A

Introduction/Background (15%)

Is context of the research clear and relevant?

Does introduction/background situate the problem in the light of the existing state of knowledge in the area of study and highlight the motivation for the study?

Is/are the problem/s clearly identified and easily recognisable?

Is there logical link between or among purpose of study, objectives and hypothesis?

Are objectives/ questions/ hypothesis clearly delineate and adequately describe what the author seeks to bring about as a result of his writing?




Suggestions for improvement:


Literature Review (20%)

Is the literature reviewed relevant and recent?

Does the literature provide clear support to key theoretical and methodological issues or questions being investigated?

Does the review identifies areas of controversy in the literature and shows the gap/s in the literature?

Is the conceptual /theoretical framework clearly articulated and serves as a tool to scaffold research, analyse the data, clearly set the constructs of the study and help to make meaning of subsequent findings?





Suggestions for improvement ___________________________________



Research Methodology and data analysis (25%)

Is there convincing support from literature provided for the choice of a particular research design?

Are data collections methods and procedures clearly justified and provided as well as linked to literature review?

Is the source of data reliable and accurate?

Are the data collected from primary and secondary sources?

Are the constructs of the study clear and appropriate?

Are data interpretations clear? Do they add further insight into the data?

Are data interpretations logically linked to results, discussions, conclusions and recommendations? Do they have accuracy and consistency?




Suggestions for improvement:



Research Findings , Conclusions and Recommendations (30%)

Are results clearly and sufficiently discussed and backed by only relevant issues in the review?

Do results duplicate information in the data?

Do results clearly re-enforce claims made in the discussion?

Are discussion clearly backed by relevant issues in the review?

Are conclusions drawn logically from results and discussions and backed by relevant issues in the review?

Does the conclusion reflect on the objectives, theory and conceptual framework?

Do recommendations refer back to statement of problem and relate to conclusions?

Does it bring new/interesting perspective into existing debate or issues?

Does the paper have originality




Suggestions for improvement ___________________________________




Acknowledgments, presentation and language (10%)


Are acknowledgements for funding organizations clearly indicated?

Are acknowledgements for sources used clearly shown in the text and in the references?

Have the various sections of the research been clearly identified and presented?

Is the paper presentable enough to the reader without any language editing?



Suggestions for improvement ____________________________________________________________


Total Grade :



Check for the originality and whether it is already published or not.




General comments on whether the draft chapter is publishable or not?


Suggestions for improvement ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part B


Based on my assessment of the basic criteria in Part A, my recommendation for this manuscript (indicate your recommendation by putting an X on the lines provided next to each option):




The paper is accepted as it is (for publication).


Needs minor revisions

Author(s) will be asked to revise the paper and resubmit, addressing reviewerscomments. A second round of review will NOT be necessary.


(Provided below).The revised paper will NOT go through another round of review.


Needs major revision (Revise and resubmit)

Author(s)will be asked to revise the paper and resubmit, addressing reviewerscomments

(Provided below).A second round of review will be necessary.


If your suggestion is major revision, are you willing review it again? (underline your choice)


A. Yes B. No



The paper is not suitable for the Journal


The paper is below the required standard


Guideline to review Articles




Minor modification


Major modification

<50% reject