At ESPAS - Journal of Economics and Banking, we rely on the expertise of our reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of the research we publish. Reviewers are asked to evaluate submissions based on several key criteria, ensuring that each manuscript meets the highest academic standards.

1. Presentation and Coherence: Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents a cohesive argument and whether the ideas are communicated clearly and logically throughout the paper.

2. Writing Quality: The title should accurately reflect the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should consider whether the writing is concise, clear, and easy to follow, ensuring that the paper is accessible to its intended audience.

3. Structure and Content: Reviewers are encouraged to identify any sections of the paper that may require expansion, reduction, or reorganization. They should consider whether certain parts of the manuscript need to be deleted, condensed, or combined for clarity and impact.

4. Title Evaluation: The title of the manuscript should be concise and informative, capturing the essence of the research without including unnecessary terms. Reviewers should ensure that abbreviations are avoided in the title and that it reflects the main results or conclusions of the study.

5. Abstract Review: The abstract should be evaluated for completeness, ensuring it includes the following elements: 1) research objectives, 2) methodology, 3) key findings, and 4) conclusions. Reviewers should check if the abstract provides a clear and concise summary of the study.

6. Introduction Assessment: The introduction should be examined for clarity and completeness. Reviewers should ensure it covers the following:

• The background and context of the research,
• A review of relevant literature to establish the novelty of the manuscript,
• A gap analysis leading to a new statement or hypothesis,
• A clear explanation of the approach used to address the research problem,
• The objectives of the study.

7. Methodology Evaluation: The methodology section should be detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the study. Reviewers should ensure that it not only defines key terms but also clearly describes the research process, including the location, participants, instruments used, and data analysis methods.

8. Results and Discussion: The results should be presented in a processed form, such as tables or figures, with accompanying descriptions. Reviewers should check that:

• The results are directly related to the research question or objectives,
• The discussion includes comparisons with other research findings,
• The author provides scientific interpretations for each result,
• The implications of the research are clearly explained,
• Any limitations of the study or methodology are acknowledged,
• Suggestions for future research or the expansion of ideas are offered.

9. Conclusion Review: The conclusion should effectively summarize the answers to the research objectives and, if applicable, provide implications or recommendations. Reviewers should ensure the conclusion is presented in a clear, narrative form without the use of bullet points or numbering.

By following these guidelines, reviewers help ensure that each manuscript published in ESPAS - Journal of Economics and Banking meets the rigorous standards expected by the academic community.