Below you will find general guidelines to consider when reviewing a paper for DJOG, but the specific review criteria may vary depending on the field of study. 

Remember that the authors may be relatively new to writing scientific papers. In peer-review feedback, it's important to balance constructive criticism with positive aspects of the paper. The reviewer should offer specific suggestions for improvement while maintaining a professional and respectful tone.

Your feedback should start with a short resume of the paper's contents. Then explain in a paragraph or two what your thoughts are regarding the overall quality of the paper. Then provide your decision: accept as is, accept pending minor revisions, major revisions requiring a second round of review, or reject.

You will have the opportunity to write confidential comments to the editors.

Finally, provide your more specific comments, preferably dividing them into the relevant manuscript sections and if applicable, use page and line numbers to indicate where the authors need to make changes.

1. Title and Abstract:

   • Is the title concise and accurately reflects the content of the paper?
   • Does the abstract provide a clear summary of the study objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?

2. Introduction:

   • Does the introduction clearly state the research problem or question being addressed?
   • Is the background information relevant and properly referenced?
   • Are the objectives or hypotheses clearly stated?

3. Methods:

   • Are the methods and experimental design appropriate to address the research question?
   • Is there sufficient detail provided for others to replicate the study?
   • Are the data collection and analysis procedures adequately described?
   • Are any limitations of the methods acknowledged?

4. Results:

   • Are the results clearly and logically presented?
   • Are the tables, figures, and other visual aids necessary and effective in conveying the results?
   • Are the statistical analyses appropriate and correctly interpreted?

5. Discussion:

   • Are the findings interpreted in the context of existing literature?
   • Are the conclusions supported by the results?
   • Are any alternative explanations or limitations of the study discussed?
   • Are the implications and potential applications of the findings addressed?

6. References:

   • Are the references relevant, recent, and appropriately cited?
   • Are there any important studies or sources that have been overlooked?

7. Language and Clarity:

   • Is the article well-written and organized?
   • Are the ideas and concepts presented in a clear and understandable manner?
   • Are there any grammar, spelling, or formatting errors?

8. Ethical Considerations:

   • Are there any ethical concerns related to the study design, data collection, or reporting?
   • Are conflicts of interest appropriately disclosed?
   • If applicable, are human or animal subjects protected according to ethical guidelines?

9. Overall Contribution:

   • Does the article contribute with relevant information to the field?

10. Suggestions for Improvement:

    • Are there any specific areas that need further clarification or elaboration?
    • Are there any additional experiments, analyses, or references that would enhance the study?