Evaluation form

In line with review policies, JOHOE has prepared the following form for reviewers. This form will visible when the reviewers login into their account and accept the article's judgment.


1. Is the subject repetitive. Please make a comment.

2. Is the title appropriate, concise? Does the title match the scope of the journal?If you have any suggestion please explain it:

3. Are the keywords coherent with the subject of the article? Please make a comment.

4. Are they correct and in accordance with MeSH? Please make a comment.

5. Does the introduction including a reasonable description of background, importance, and research necessity and study propose(s)? Please make a comment.

6. Is the method and the material section of the article precisely stated? Please make a comment.

7. Does the section including a definitive description of the investigation population? Please make a comment.

8. Is the sample size formula stated in the method and material section? Please make a comment.

9. Are the variables, measurement tools, and their ranges fully stated in the section? Please make a comment.

10. Does the section including a definitive description of the Data collection method? Please make a comment.

11. Does the sample size comply with the guidelines in terms of number or volume? Please make a comment.

12. Does the section including a definitive description of the sampling method? Please make a comment.

13. If there was any lack of information or mistake in study design any mistakes please explain it: 

14. Does the section including a definitive description of statistical analysis? Please make a comment.

15. Is the statistical analysis properly selected and stated? Please make a comment.

16. Are the results fully stated? Please make a comment.

17. Do the results completely described the aim(s) of the study? Please make a comment.

18. Is the statistical tests properly performed? Please make a comment.

19. Are the Figs., Tables and diagrams appropriate and contain sufficient information for clarity? Please make a comment.

20. Are the tables and the picture coherent with the results? Please make a comment.

21. Are the results of the main objective stated at the beginning of the discussion? Please make a comment.

22. Have the study results interpretation and their shortcomings been clearly described and does this part of the manuscript compare the study’s data with previously published papers in this regard and addressing their similarity and differences? Please make a comment.

23. Have the appropriate interpretations of the results been made In the discussion section? Please make a comment.

24. Are suggestions being made about future research into this topic/phenomenon or what does the researcher consider the way forward'? Please make a comment.

25. Are the references up to date? Please make a comment.

26. Are references and abstract based on the format of the journal?