Guidelines for Reviewers


As a PaperASIA reviewer, you will receive invitations to review a manuscript via email.
As the reviewer invitation email states, please click on one of the links to either “accept” or “decline” the reviewer invitation. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the editor on whether a manuscript should be accepted, require revisions, or should be rejected.


Reviewers are given 14 days to respond initially to an invitation and then 20 days from acceptance of the invitation to complete the review. Within the 20-day timeframe, several reminders will be sent from the system to ensure that your review is completed on time.

Note: If you do not submit your review after the 2nd late reviewer reminder, the Associate Editor handling the paper can either send you an email reminder or reassign the manuscript to another reviewer. If you need additional time to complete your review, please contact the editor.


Review reports should include:

A concise summary of the paper's main objectives and contributions. It must evaluate the methodology, strengths, and weaknesses, addressing clarity and offering specific, constructive recommendations for improvement. Maintaining a professional and unbiased tone is crucial throughout the report.

General questions that can help you to review articles:

  1. Introduction:
  • Does the introduction clearly state the research problem or objective?
  • Is the significance of the study well-defined?
  • Are relevant background literature and prior research adequately referenced?
  1. Research Design and Methodology:
  • Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research question?
  • Are the methods well-described and replicable?
  • Are the data collection and analysis methods suitable for the research design?
  • Are ethical considerations addressed?
  1. Results:
  • Are the results clearly presented and supported by appropriate data?
  • Is statistical analysis applied correctly?
  • Are figures and tables clear and relevant?
  • Are results interpreted appropriately?
  1. Discussion:
  • Does the discussion provide a thorough interpretation of the results?
  • Are the findings compared and contrasted with existing literature?
  • Are limitations acknowledged, and their potential impact discussed?
  • Does the discussion lead to meaningful conclusions?
  1. Clarity and Organization:
  • Is the article well-organized and logically structured?
  • Are headings and subheadings indicative of the content?
  • Is the language clear, concise, and appropriate for the target audience?
  1. Originality and Contribution:
  • Does the article present new insights or perspectives?
  • Does it contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field?
  • Are the contributions explicitly stated?
  1. References:
  • Are references current, relevant, and appropriately cited?
  • Are there any notable omissions in the references?
  1. Figures and Tables:
  • Are figures and tables necessary and effectively used?
  • Do they enhance the understanding of the article?
  1. Compliance with Guidelines:
  • Does the article adhere to the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements?
  • Are all necessary sections included (e.g., abstract, keywords, conclusion)?
  1. Overall Impression:
  • What is your overall impression of the article's quality and contribution to the field?
  • What recommendations do you have for improvement, if any?


Please provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript as follows:

  • Accept Submission: The paper can be accepted without any further changes.
  • Revisions Required: The paper can be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments.
  • Resubmit for Review: The paper can be accepted after major revision based on the reviewer’s comments. It will require second round of review
  • Resubmit Elsewhere: The articles cannot be accepted because its not related to the scope of the journal
  • Decline Submission: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper may be rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.

Note that decisions on revisions, acceptance, or rejections must always be well justified. Reviewer attachments need to be blinded and professional because they will be available to the author. Please do not include your name or any contact or identifying information on uploaded documents, including the file name.


Occasionally, an author will be asked to submit a revised manuscript. If you were a reviewer for the original manuscript, you may be invited to review the revision, especially if significant changes were requested from the author. In such a case, you will receive an email from the Associate Editor handling the paper. The email will give clear instructions on how to proceed.