This platform is in a testing period — content and features may change.

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport

Directorate-General for Higher Education

Department of Research and Innovation

CJES

Cambodian Journal of Education and STEM

Open access research in education and STEM from Cambodia and the region

What a strong review looks like

A strong review report:

  • Judges the quality, originality, and significance of the work
  • Provides recommendations the authors can act on
  • Cites specific locations in the manuscript (line numbers or sections)
  • Avoids personal language; focuses on the work, not the authors
  • Distinguishes major issues (must be addressed) from minor or optional suggestions
  • Treats authors as colleagues — assume good faith

Evaluation criteria

Please assess each manuscript on:

  • Originality and significance — does this work add something new to the field?
  • Methods — are the methods appropriate, reproducible, and clearly described?
  • Results — do the data support the conclusions drawn?
  • Writing and clarity — can a reader in the field follow the argument?
  • References — comprehensive and appropriate, citing relevant prior work?
  • Research ethics — appropriate ethics approvals, data availability, conflict-of-interest disclosure?

Suggested review report structure

  1. Summary of the work — 1–2 paragraphs showing you understood the key claims
  2. Overall assessment — strengths and weaknesses (originality, significance, rigour)
  3. Major issues — concerns that must be addressed before the work can be accepted
  4. Minor issues — smaller suggestions, typos, presentation improvements
  5. Confidential comments to the editor (optional) — issues you don't want the authors to see

Recommendation options

  • Accept — the work is well-prepared and ready to publish
  • Minor revisions — issues that can be resolved with small changes; usually no re-review needed
  • Major revisions — substantial work required, but the manuscript could be salvageable
  • Reject — fundamental problems, or the work is not a fit for CJES

The handling editor combines reviewer recommendations with their own assessment to make the final decision.

Timeline and submission

CJES asks reviewers to complete reviews within 3 weeks of accepting an invitation. If you need more time, please notify the handling editor as soon as possible. Submit reviews through the online portal — not by email — to maintain confidentiality and audit trail.