Manuscript Review

The writer is supposed to read the manuscript and answer the evaluation questions provided in the file “Manuscript Review Form1”, in addition, to revise the manuscript by following “the Reviewer Guidelines form2”:

• Reviewer Guidelines form1:

Answer the marginal comments in this form.

• Reviewer Guidelines form2:

The revised version of the original review file “the feedback.” AS an essay 3 pages by following form2 guidelines.

Manuscript Review Form1

Journal editorial team thanks you for reviewing this manuscript. Ultimately, it is the effectiveness of the peer review process that decides the quality of this journal. We ask that you take the time to provide detailed answers in the review form in order to allow the editorial team to make an effective decision on the manuscript and to provide authors with thorough feedback. 

If an item does not apply to the manuscript you’re reviewing, please enter “n/a.”

Originality 

How original is this manuscript? To what extent does it add to the existing literature on the topic?

Fit with Journal’s aims and scope

To what extent does the manuscript help to advance its audiences?

Interest to the Journal’s audience- the diversity, minorities and international journal in Higher Education

To what extent will the manuscript interest researchers and/or practitioners in its field? “Higher Education”

Writing clarity and style

How clear is the writing? What areas need clarification? To what extent does the manuscript adhere to APA 7?

Title and abstract

How well does the title specifically, yet concisely name the article?

How well does the abstract summarize the article?

Introduction and/or literature review

How well does the introduction and/or literature review address the problem, purpose, relevant research, and research questions or hypotheses?

Method

How well does the method section describe adequate and appropriate research methods that allow for replication?

Results

How well does the results section present thorough, accurate, clear, and objective results?

Tables, figures, images

How well do included tables, figures, and/or images allow for an enhanced understanding of the provided information? Are additional tables, figures, or images needed?

Discussion, Conclusion, Implications

In the discussion, conclusion, and/or implications section(s):

How well are results interpreted and connected to relevant research?

How well are claims supported by results?

How well are implications for future research and/or practice discussed?

Overall rating

Overall, how do you rate the quality of this manuscript?

Excellent/Very Good/Good/Fair/Below the Standard

Reviewer Guidelines form2:

Dear Reviewer, 

Here are a few questions that you might find useful to help the author improve their manuscript, including better aligning it with the journal’s focus, by writing your notes under them. Please delete/replace the “sample comments” after the questions. We welcome track changes and marginal comments that you might be able to provide in addition to the feedback.  

Question 1: What is best done in the manuscript?
Sample Comment: The content of the article is relevant to readers of this journal. The writing is organized well and interesting to read. Results and discussion sections are done very effectively.

Question 2: What needs to be improved most?
Sample Comment: There is no real introduction/framing in the beginning; the long “background” sections should be condensed and rewritten as a framing/introduction section (the title “introduction” is unnecessary). The results section needs more explanation and fewer numbers.

Question 3: Does the manuscript’s content fit the Journal? Do the subject and argument of the draft focus on higher education? Does the writer make the disciplinary and national/cultural/material context clear for interdisciplinary and global audiences? Is the issue timely and the main idea clear and interesting?
Sample Comment: Yes. Readers interested in educational discourse coming out of different disciplines and different cultures/contexts would find this article useful. The method of teaching described in the Chinese context here may not be easy to implement in other places, but the author is aware of this and provides broader insights about realigning testing with teaching for other contexts as well.

Question 4: Does it contribute new knowledge about higher education on the subject? Please note that most readers of the journal are scholars/teachers interested in learning about higher education from other educators across disciplines and across national/cultural borders.
Sample Comment:Not sure if the key idea of effective teaching with limited technology is “new” in itself; in fact, readers in more technologically well-resourced contexts may not find the manuscript very useful. However, it was refreshing to learn about a few specific methods of “leapfrogging” that teachers in Nepal use in the classroom. Reading this manuscript triggered some strategies for my own classroom here in Brazil.

Question 5: Is the thesis and/or purpose of the manuscript clearly stated early on? Does the author focus on the key idea/argument throughout the manuscript? If the statement of objective is hidden, delayed, or overly complex, point it out and give specific suggestions for foregrounding it.
Sample Comment:No. The author states the argument/thesis and purpose in the “abstract” but instead of a good introduction (framing, outline, preview), there are three separate sections that describe and provide a literature review on three separate ideas. The author doesn’t frame those ideas within the main argument/issue of the article at large, and he/she also doesn’t provide good connections from section to section. See comment #9 for the solution.

Question 6: Is there a logical focus and flow of the main idea throughout the draft? Because this journal has mixed audiences, writers must make their manuscripts highly “accessible,” showing a clear connection from the main idea/argument to each section. If you cannot easily see the “big picture” of the logical organization of ideas when quickly reading the manuscript, please tell the writer how you address the problem.
Sample Comment:Yes—except the fact that the author provides three sections that read like textbook chapters in lieu of a good introduction. The rest of the manuscript has parts whose roles in the big picture I could easily/quickly follow.

Question 7: Does the work build on a review of relevant literature? Would you suggest having a separate review of the literature, or would it be better to disperse citations in certain sections? Do you suggest more referencing to show/connect to current knowledge on the topic? Please pay attention to possibly missing citations.
Sample Comment:Yes. References are relevant and sufficient. In fact, the author overdoes this in the manuscript. See comment #2 above for how to reduce the number of citations.

Question 8: Do the evidence and arguments sufficiently support or explore the key issue? The manuscript as a whole must feel complete and convincing. If you think that the author needs to find more sources, add examples or explanations, or clarify some of the key issues, please advise. If something is overdone, please suggest deletion or condensation. 
Sample Comment: Yes. Generally done well.

Question 9: Does the manuscript follow APA citation guidelines? We ask authors to follow the APA guidelines, so please point out errors and issues in that regard. Also, please point out if the abstract isn’t roughly 120 words, captions/titles aren’t provided for tables/figures, there’s no one-to-one match between in-text citation and references listed, block quotation isn’t used for 40+ words, page and year aren’t specified indirect quotations, section titles aren’t telling, language and tone doesn’t fit an academic journal, and the type of evidence and elaboration doesn’t match the discipline and topic.
Sample Comment:There are a number of problems in this regard, as I have indicated by using track change and marginal comments.

Question 10: If you have any additional comments, please add them here.
Sample Comment: I think this manuscript if improved and published, could be a valuable contribution to this journal. The writer may not be highly experienced and his/her style less than advanced, but the subject and argument are important to share. Teachers, especially in developing countries around the world, would greatly benefit from learning about these smart pedagogical strategies of making a lot out of little technology. If you decide to move the manuscript forward and want to connect the writer to me as a “mentor reviewer,” I am willing to help that way.