Reviewer Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to Nayara Journal of STEM Education and Innovation (NJSEI) are initially screened by the Editorial Team based on their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with author guidelines, and basic academic quality. Manuscripts that meet these criteria are sent to reviewers through a double-blind peer review process.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript objectively, constructively, and confidentially, with particular attention to novelty, methodological rigor, and contribution to STEM education and innovation.

General Evaluation

1. Novelty and Contribution (Key Criterion)

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate clear originality and innovation?
  • Does it address a meaningful research gap?
  • Does it contribute new knowledge, methods, or perspectives in STEM education?
  • Is the contribution clearly stated and justified?

2. Presentation

  • Does the paper present a coherent and logical argument?
  • Are ideas clearly organized and easy to follow?
  • Is the structure consistent with academic writing standards?

3. Writing Quality

  • Is the manuscript written clearly, concisely, and professionally?
  • Is the language appropriate for an academic audience?
  • Are there grammatical or stylistic issues that need improvement?

4. Title

  • Does the title accurately reflect the content and contribution of the manuscript?
  • Is it concise and informative (avoiding unnecessary words or abbreviations)?

5. Abstract

  • Does the abstract clearly include:
    • Purpose of the study
    • Methodology
    • Key findings
    • Contribution/novelty

6. Introduction

  • Does the introduction clearly describe:
    • Background and context
    • Relevant literature (state of the art)
    • Research gap
    • Novelty statement and contribution
    • Research objectives

7. Methods

  • Is the research design appropriate and clearly described?
  • Are data sources, participants, and instruments well explained?
  • Are data collection and analysis procedures transparent and replicable?

8. Results and Discussion

  • Are the results presented clearly (tables/figures where appropriate)?
  • Are findings aligned with the research objectives?
  • Does the discussion:
    • Compare findings with previous studies?
    • Highlight what is new or different?
    • Provide meaningful interpretation?
  • Are implications of the study clearly described?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Are future research directions suggested?

9. Conclusion

  • Does the conclusion clearly answer the research objectives?
  • Does it emphasize the main contribution and innovation?
  • Is it written concisely in paragraph form?

10. References

  • Are references relevant and up-to-date?
  • Are citations consistent with APA style?
  • Are key references in the field included?

Ethical Considerations

  • Is there any indication of plagiarism or unethical practices?
  • Are sources properly cited?
  • Is there any potential conflict of interest?

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and must not use any part of the manuscript for personal purposes.

Review Decision Outcomes

Based on the evaluation, reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission
  • Minor Revisions Required
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject Submission

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, constructive, and detailed comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.