Thank you for agreeing to be a reviewer for LingKAr . Your role is crucial in maintaining the scientific quality of the articles published. Below are general guidelines to assist you in the review process:

1. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers should have expertise and experience relevant to the topic of the article being reviewed. Additionally, reviewers are expected to have a strong academic track record and experience in scientific publishing.

2. Ethics and Confidentiality

   • Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Do not share the content of the manuscript with others or discuss it outside the review process.
   • Objectivity: Reviewers must provide objective and constructive feedback without prejudice or bias.
   • Conflict of Interest: If you have a potential conflict of interest with the article under review, please report it to the editor immediately so that the article can be reassigned to another reviewer.

3. Review Process

   • Review Timeline: Reviewers are expected to complete the review within [number of days] days of receiving the review request. If you are unable to complete it within the specified time, please inform the editor as soon as possible.
   • Evaluation Structure: When providing an assessment, reviewers should focus on several key aspects such as:
     • Originality: Does this research provide a new and significant contribution to the field?
     • Clarity: Is the manuscript presented in a clear and well-structured manner?
     • Methodology: Is the methodology used appropriate and correctly applied?
     • References and Context: Does the author use relevant literature and provide sufficient context for their research?
     • Conclusion: Are the conclusions supported by the data and analysis provided?

4. Review Recommendations

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations to the editor:

• Accept without changes
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revisions required
• Reject

Reviewers are expected to provide clear and specific written feedback to support their recommendations, including suggestions for improvement if needed.

5. Manuscript Revisions

If the article requires revisions, reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate the manuscript after the author submits revisions. Reviewers should check whether the author has improved the manuscript according to the suggestions provided.

6. Reporting Issues

If you identify any ethical violations, plagiarism, or other issues during the review process, please report them to the editor immediately.