Reviewers of the Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) are expected to evaluate manuscripts systematically and objectively. The review should focus on the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, and clarity of the manuscript.

The following criteria should be considered when assessing a submission:

• Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of JODESMA?
• Is the research relevant to decision support systems, multi-criteria decision making, decision analytics, computational decision methods, optimization, or related areas?
• Is the research problem relevant to the journal's readership?

• Does the manuscript present an original contribution?
• Is the contribution clearly distinguished from existing studies?
• Does the manuscript provide a meaningful methodological, theoretical, computational, or practical contribution?
• Is the claimed novelty adequately supported by the literature?

• Is the research problem clearly defined?
• Are the research objectives specific and logically formulated?
• Is there a clear relationship between the research problem, objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions?

• Is the literature review relevant to the research problem?
• Does it adequately cover important previous studies?
• Does the manuscript establish a clear research gap?
• Are recent and directly relevant references appropriately considered?
• Are citations used accurately and appropriately?

• Is the selected methodology appropriate for the research objectives?
• Are the methods described sufficiently to allow the study to be understood and, where applicable, reproduced?
• Are assumptions, parameters, variables, criteria, datasets, and procedures clearly defined?
• Are mathematical formulations, algorithms, models, or computational procedures correctly presented?
• Are methodological choices adequately justified?

• Are the data sources appropriate and sufficiently described?
• Is the dataset adequate for the research objectives?
• Are criteria, alternatives, variables, and measurement procedures clearly explained?
• Is the experimental or evaluation design appropriate?
• Are data-processing and normalization procedures appropriately justified where applicable?

• Are the analytical procedures appropriate and correctly applied?
• Are the results presented clearly and accurately?
• Are tables, figures, equations, and numerical results consistent with the methodology?
• Are comparisons with relevant methods or approaches appropriately conducted?
• Where applicable, are sensitivity, validation, or robustness analyses adequately addressed?

• Does the discussion appropriately interpret the findings?
• Are the findings related to previous research?
• Does the discussion explain the implications of the results?
• Are interpretations supported by the evidence presented?
• Are limitations appropriately acknowledged?

• Are the conclusions consistent with the research objectives?
• Are the conclusions supported by the results?
• Does the conclusion clearly state the main contribution of the study?
• Does it avoid claims that extend beyond the evidence?

• Is the manuscript logically organized?
• Is the terminology clear and consistent?
• Are equations, tables, and figures properly presented and referenced?
• Is the manuscript written in clear academic English?
• Are references complete, relevant, and consistently formatted?

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript raises concerns related to:

• plagiarism or substantial textual overlap;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabricated or manipulated data;
• inappropriate manipulation of figures or images;
• citation manipulation;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• inappropriate authorship or contributorship; or
• other potential violations of research or publication ethics.

Any substantial ethical concern should be reported confidentially to the editor rather than communicated directly to the authors.

Reviewers should consider the manuscript as a whole and determine whether the study demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, and clarity for publication consideration.

The final recommendation should be consistent with the reviewer's substantive comments and should provide clear justification for any required revisions.