Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality and integrity of NeuroLingua: Journal of Cognitive, Technological, and Cultural Language Learning. The following criteria and guidance help reviewers evaluate manuscripts effectively and consistently. Each submission should be assessed for clarity, originality, methodological rigor, and scholarly contribution.

Presentation

Does the paper present a cohesive and logical argument? Are the ideas clearly structured and presented?

Writing

Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript? Is the writing concise, coherent, and easy to follow?

Length

Are there portions of the manuscript that should be expanded, condensed, summarized, or removed for better clarity and balance?

Title

Is the title concise and representative of the manuscript’s content? Does it avoid unnecessary abbreviations and clearly express the study’s main focus or results?

Abstract

Does the abstract clearly include: (1) research aim, (2) methods, (3) findings, and (4) conclusions?

Introduction

• Background and context of the study;
• State of the art and relevant literature demonstrating novelty;
• Gap analysis and statement of novelty;
• Hypothesis or research problem (if applicable);
• Approach or theoretical framework used;
• Specific aims or objectives of the study.

Method

• Is the methodology clearly written and replicable?
• Does the author explain procedures, instruments, participants, and data analysis comprehensively?
• Does the method demonstrate rigor and suitability to the research objectives?

Results and Discussion

• Are results presented clearly and supported with processed data (not raw)?
• Do tables or figures include clear captions and explanations?
• Are results consistent with the stated objectives?
• Does the author relate findings to existing literature and explain similarities or differences?
• Is there a sound scientific interpretation of the results?
• Does the discussion highlight implications, limitations, and potential areas for further research?

Conclusion

• Does the conclusion directly answer the study objectives?
• Are implications or recommendations clearly stated (if any)?
• Is the conclusion written as a cohesive paragraph rather than bullet points?

Note: Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and provide constructive, evidence-based comments to improve the quality of manuscripts under review.