Journal of Asian Orientation in Theology Article Review Guide

For each section, answer the key questions, give a rating (Good / Fair / Needs Improvement), then write notes and concrete suggestions for the authors.

1. Title

• Does the title convey the core of the study (topic, object, approach or method)?
• Is it concise (ideally about 10-15 words)?
• Is the wording clear and unambiguous, without unusual abbreviations?
• Is it consistent with the abstract, discussion, and conclusion?
• Is it free of overclaiming relative to the actual results?

2. Abstract

A good abstract contains four elements:

Element	Key questions
Research problem	Are the problem, background, or objective stated clearly and specifically? Is the urgency evident?
Method	Are the approach, design, data source, sample, and analysis technique mentioned concisely but adequately?
Novelty	Does it state what is new or different from previous research? Which research gap is addressed?
Results	Are the main findings stated concretely (with key figures for quantitative work)?

Additional checks:

• Does the abstract stand on its own?
• Does its length meet the journal's requirements (typically 150-250 words)?
• Does it match the article, without introducing information absent from the main text?
• Are the keywords relevant?

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Depth of analysis and fit with the data

• Is the analysis grounded in the data presented, rather than the authors' opinion?
• Are the data presented clearly and verifiable?
• Does the analysis go beyond description to interpretation ("why" and "how")?
• Are there claims not supported by the data?
• Are the findings compared with previous studies and relevant theory?

3.2 Appropriate use of the research method

• Is the method suited to the research questions and objectives?
• Are procedures described in enough detail to be replicated?
• Are validity and reliability (quantitative) or trustworthiness measures such as triangulation (qualitative) maintained?
• Are there methodological limitations the authors do not acknowledge?

3.3 Novelty contributed

• What is new: a concept, model, data, context, method, or finding?
• Is the novelty stated explicitly and demonstrated, not merely claimed?
• Is the difference from previous research clear and significant?

3.4 Correct analytical standards

• Is the analysis technique applied according to its rules?
• Are test assumptions met, and are results interpreted correctly?
• Is the argument coherent, without leaps in reasoning or causal fallacies?
• Are theories and terms used consistently and accurately?
• Are research ethics observed (consent, anonymity, no plagiarism)?

3.5 Unclear or shallow parts

• Which parts are ambiguous, confusing, or inconsistent (cite page or paragraph)?
• Which parts need deepening (more data, arguments, or theory)?
• Are there tables, figures, or terms left unexplained?
• Does the discussion follow the order of the research questions?

4. Conclusion

• Does it directly answer the research questions and objectives?
• Are the important findings summarized clearly and consistent with the discussion, with no new information?
• Does it stay within the data (no overgeneralization)?
• Is the scholarly contribution, theoretical and practical, stated explicitly?
• Are limitations and suggestions for further research mentioned?

5. References

• Are most references from reputable scholarly journals?
• Are they current (at least about 80% from the last 5-10 years, adjusted to the journal and field)?
• Are classic references included where needed as a theoretical foundation?
• Is the number adequate (generally 20-40 or more)?
• Does every in-text citation appear in the reference list, and vice versa?
• Is the citation format consistent with the journal's style?
• Is there excessive self-citation?

6. Final Recommendation

Choose one:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revision
• Major revision then re- evaluate
• Reject

Then write a summary of strengths, main weaknesses, and priority suggestions.

Tips: be specific and constructive, separate fundamental issues (method, validity) from technical ones (language, format), and start with positives before criticism.