Hướng dẫn cho phản biện - JTD Journal
Advanced Search & Filters
Login/Register Subscribe

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN

jtd.ueh.edu.vn

Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Technology and Design (JTD)

I. Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the academic quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Through the peer review process, the Editorial Board evaluates the relevance, reliability, originality, and scientific merit of submitted manuscripts before making editorial decisions. Reviewers’ comments also provide valuable feedback that helps authors improve their research and enhance the overall quality of their manuscripts.

The Journal encourages reviewers to conduct their evaluations objectively, fairly, constructively, and within the specified review timeline.

The Editorial Board carefully considers all reviewer reports before reaching a final editorial decision. The final decision may differ from an individual reviewer's recommendation after taking into account multiple expert opinions or authors' revisions. The manuscript status will be updated through the submission system, allowing reviewers to monitor its progress.

II. Review Principles

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript content throughout the review process;;
  • Refrain from sharing manuscripts or discussing their contents with any third party without prior authorization from the Editorial Board;
  • Not use or cite unpublished data, ideas, methods, or findings for personal or professional benefit;
  • Avoid direct communication with the authors regarding the manuscript unless explicitly authorized by the Editorial Board.
Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline a review invitation if any financial, institutional, professional, or personal conflict of interest could compromise—or reasonably be perceived to compromise—their impartiality. Examples include, but are not limited to:

  • Research collaborations with the authors;
  • Personal relationships or academic competition involving the authors or their affiliated institutions;
  • Financial interests related to the research or its outcomes.
Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviewer reports should be objective, respectful, and supported by appropriate scholarly reasoning. Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • Focus their assessment on the academic quality of the manuscript;
  • Provide constructive suggestions that help improve the manuscript;
  • Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or unsupported allegations;
  • Complete the review within the agreed review period whenever possible.

III. Review Criteria

Manuscript Presentation and Structure
  • The manuscript is well organized, clearly written, and follows the Journal's formatting requirements;
  • The title, abstract, keywords, and overall structure accurately reflect the study;
  • The language is clear, scholarly, and appropriate for an international academic audience;
  • Tables, figures, references, and supplementary materials are presented consistently and appropriately.
Scholarly Foundation and Research Background
  • The literature review is relevant, current, and adequately reflects the research context;
  • Relevant studies are appropriately discussed and cited;
  • The theoretical framework or technical background adequately supports the research objectives;
  • The manuscript clearly identifies the research gap or problem being addressed.
Research Methodology / Design / Technical Approach
  • The research methodology or technical approach is appropriate for the study objectives;
  • The research design, model, or experimental procedure is scientifically sound;
  • The methodology is described with sufficient clarity;
  • The analytical methods, datasets, or technical tools are appropriate and properly applied.
Data, Models, and Results
  • The data, models, or experiments are reliable and transparently reported;
  • The results are clearly presented and appropriately analyzed;
  • The findings are consistent with the research objectives and theoretical framework;
  • The conclusions are adequately supported by the results presented.
Scientific Contribution and Practical Relevance
  • The manuscript demonstrates originality or makes a meaningful contribution to the fields of Technology, Design, and Innovation;
  • The study has academic significance and/or practical value;
  • The findings have the potential to contribute to future research or professional practice.

IV. Reviewer Recommendation

Following the review, reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

Accept

The manuscript satisfies the Journal's academic standards and may be accepted for publication without revision or with only minor editorial corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is of publishable quality but requires minor revisions, such as:

  • improving presentation or formatting;
  • refining academic writing;
  • providing additional explanations or references;
  • revising tables, figures, or formatting.

These revisions do not affect the overall methodology, results, or conclusions of the study.

Major Revision

The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial revisions, which may include:

  • strengthening the theoretical framework;
  • improving the research methodology;
  • revising the data analysis;
  • restructuring parts of the manuscript;
  • improving the interpretation of results or academic discussion.

The revised manuscript may be subject to an additional round of peer review.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the Journal's academic standards or falls outside its scope. Reasons for rejection may include, but are not limited to:

  • insufficient originality or scientific contribution;
  • inappropriate research methodology;
  • unreliable data or unsupported findings;
  • failure to meet the Journal's scholarly or publication standards.
Reviewer System User Guide

Instructions for using the Journal's manuscript management system for reviewers: here