events management; tourism; MICE

Information For Authors





 (adapted from Mack, C (2015) How to Write a Good Scientific Paper: A Reviewer`s Checklist. Journal of Micro/Nanoliyhography, MEMS, and MOEMS, Apr – Jun, Vol 14(2)


Title of Paper:                                                            Date Paper Received for Review:  








Reviewer`s Comments

Summary of the paper:


1)     What is novel in this paper


(One or two sentences)



2)     Why is the content of this paper significant


(one or two sentences)

















Organisation, length and clarity:


1)     Are the contents well organized and structured so that conclusions logically follow from the results and the methods used?


2)     Is the length of the paper appropriate for the journal (4 – 10 pages)?


3)     Is the writing style clear?









Does the introduction:


1)     Explain the field of work and justify why this is an important field to study?


2)     Indicate a gap in research in this field, raise a research question, or challenge prior work in this field?


3)     Outline the purpose of the paper, indicating what is novel and why it is significant?











Does the literature review section:


1)     Make explicit the theoretical framework(s) that underpin the research?


2)     Review critically the academic literature and theoretical frameworks that underpin the research?


3)     Provide an evaluation of the academic literature and theoretical frameworks and their relevance to the research?


4)     Provide the context and the rationale for the research undertaken in the paper?





Does the methodology section:


1)     Explain how the results were generated?


2)     Justify the research methods used?


3)     Explain and justify the sampling method used with an acknowledgement of the limitations of the sampling method used?


4)     Explain and evaluate how the fieldwork was undertaken?


5)     Justify the data analysis and statistical approaches used?












Does the results and discussion section:


1)     Present the results of the paper in a logical order using tables and graphs as necessary?


2)     Explain the results and show how they help to answer the research questions posed?


3)     Summarise the results of the research; discuss whether the results are expected/unexpected; compare the results to previous work; interpret and explain the results by reference to relevant theories/models; consider the generality of the results?


4)     Explain any problems or shortcomings encountered during the course of the research?


5)     Consider any alternative explanations for the results?











Does the conclusion?


1)     Provide a brief summary of the results and discussion?


2)     Emphasise the implications of the findings, explaining how the research is significant and providing the key messages the author wishes to convey?


3)     Provide the general claims that can be supported by evidence?










Do the citations (references):


1)     Provide sufficient context to allow for critical analysis of the work of others?


2)     Provide sources of background and related material so that the current work can be understood?


3)     Provide examples of alternate ideas, data or conclusions to compare and contrast with this work (if they exist)?


4)     Are the citations up to date, referencing the latest work on this topic?


5)     Are all in-text citations included in the bibliography and referenced correctly?








Do the figures and tables:


1)     Accurately document the data produced?


2)     Have captions to allow them to be understood independent of the text (if possible)?


3)     Relate to specific content in the text of the paper?








Does the abstract:


1)     Provide a stand-alone summary of the paper in no more than 200 words?


2)     Indicate the issues that led to this paper?


3)     Present the aim/goals of this paper – what gap is being filled?


4)     Present the methodology used for the research?


5)     Briefly explain the results of the research?


6)     Present the main conclusion reached?





Does the title of the paper:


1)     Reflect the aim and approach of the paper?


2)     Give a concise and specific indication of the content of the paper?





Acceptance or Rejection of the Paper


1)    Does the content of the paper match the scope of the journal?                  Yes/No


2)    Does the paper present novel results?                                                        Yes/No


3)     Are the results presented in the paper worth reading about?                      Yes/No


4)     Do the data presented support the conclusions reached?                           Yes/No


5)     Is the writing style of the paper suitable for publication?                              Yes/No



Taking the above points into consideration should the paper be published?                Yes – no amendments needed


                                                                                                                                       Yes – minor amendments needed (see below)


                                                                                                                                       Yes – major amendments needed (see below)


                                                                                                                                        No – reject this paper                                                                                                                                                                   









Additional Comments from the Reviewer

















Managing Editor Comments