Reviewer Guidelines 

Thank you for your commitment to maintaining the scholarly integrity of our journal. We kindly ask you to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript, focusing on the following three core pillars:

A. METHODOLOGY & STRUCTURE (Manuscript Anatomy)

• Introduction (Max. 20%): Assess the clarity of the gap analysis, the robustness of the state-of-the-art (literature review), and the precision of the research objectives.

• Methods (10-15%): Ensure the methodology is detailed and reproducible. It should go beyond general statistical formulas to describe the specific research design and implementation.

• Findings & Discussion (Min. 60%): Results must be presented clearly, followed by a rigorous and scholarly discussion that contextualizes the data.

• Conclusion (Max. 10% including References): This section must directly address the research objectives without over-claiming. It should synthesize the implications rather than merely restating the findings.

B. DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

• Analytical Depth: Evaluate whether the author provides a genuine analysis of the data rather than a superficial description of figures and tables.

• Formatting: Tables must not contain vertical lines (column borders), adhering to standard academic formatting.

• Critical Synthesis: Results must be critically linked to existing theories and previous research.

C. LANGUAGE & COHERENCE

• Paragraph Unity: Each paragraph should demonstrate a clear structure: Topic Sentence, Supporting Sentences, Supporting Details, and a Concluding Sentence.

• Citations: Authors must utilize APA Style 7th Edition (the use of reference managers like Mendeley or Zotero is highly encouraged).

• Reference Quality: We strongly prioritize references from recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science or Scopus.

Note to Reviewers: Please provide specific excerpts or quotes from the manuscript when suggesting major or minor revisions to assist the author in their corrections.