Reviewer Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Astronomy and Sharia Applications (JASA) are initially screened by the Editorial Team to assess their suitability for the journal's Focus and Scope, compliance with the official article template, and adherence to the Author Guidelines.

Manuscripts that meet the initial editorial requirements will proceed to the peer-review process. Authors may be requested to make preliminary revisions before the manuscript is sent to reviewers. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, constructively, and confidentially based on the following criteria.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the manuscript presents a coherent and logical argument;
• the ideas are clearly organized and communicated;
• the structure of the manuscript supports the objectives of the study;
• the overall presentation is academically appropriate and easy to follow.

Reviewers should evaluate whether:

• the manuscript is written clearly, concisely, and academically;
• the title accurately represents the content of the manuscript;
• sentences and paragraphs are logically connected;
• unnecessary repetition, ambiguity, or excessive description is avoided;
• terminology is used consistently throughout the manuscript.

Reviewers should identify whether any part of the manuscript should be:

• expanded;
• removed;
• condensed;
• summarized;
• reorganized; or
• combined with another section.

The length of each section should be proportionate to its academic importance and contribution to the manuscript.

The title should be concise, informative, and representative of the main issue, result, or conclusion presented in the manuscript.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• the title accurately reflects the content of the study;
• unnecessary or implicit terms are omitted;
• abbreviations are avoided where possible;
• the title clearly communicates the central focus of the manuscript.

The abstract should clearly and concisely present:

1. the aim or purpose of the study;
2. the research method;
3. the principal results or findings; and
4. the main conclusion or scholarly contribution.

The abstract should accurately represent the content of the manuscript and should not contain information that is absent from the main text.

The Introduction should clearly present:

• the background and academic context of the study;
• the state of the art and relevant previous research;
• the research or knowledge gap;
• the novelty or distinctive contribution of the study;
• the hypothesis or problem statement, where applicable;
• the approach used to address the research problem;
• the objective or research question of the study.

Reviewers should assess whether the Introduction demonstrates the significance of the study and provides sufficient justification for conducting the research.

The Methods section should explain the research process clearly enough to allow other researchers, where applicable, to understand, evaluate, and replicate the study.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript adequately describes:

• the research design and approach;
• the research location or observational site;
• participants, samples, or data sources, where applicable;
• research instruments;
• observational, computational, textual, or analytical procedures;
• data collection techniques;
• data analysis methods;
• other methodological procedures relevant to the study.

The Methods section should explain how the research was conducted rather than merely provide definitions of methodological terms.

Reviewers should assess whether:

• the data have been appropriately processed and presented rather than reported merely as raw data;
• tables, figures, graphs, or other visual materials are relevant, readable, and adequately explained;
• the results directly address the research questions or objectives stated in the Introduction;
• the findings are interpreted scientifically and analytically;
• the results are compared with relevant previous studies;
• similarities and differences with previous research are adequately discussed;
• the implications of the findings are clearly explained;
• the limitations of the study, methods, or analytical approach are acknowledged where relevant;
• areas for further research or development are identified where appropriate.

The Discussion should go beyond describing the findings and should explain their academic significance and contribution.

The Conclusion should:

• directly answer the research objectives or questions;
• synthesize the principal findings;
• state the main scholarly contribution of the study;
• provide implications or recommendations where appropriate.

The Conclusion should be written in paragraph form and should not merely repeat the Results and Discussion.

After completing the review, reviewers should select one of the following editorial recommendations:

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, constructive, and specific comments that can assist the authors in improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript and support the Editorial Team in making an informed editorial decision.