Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Sci Ed > Forthcoming articles > Article
Training Material
 A novel “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for evaluating artificial intelligence–generated scholarly manuscripts
Aji Prasetya Wibawaorcid, Anik Nur Handayaniorcid, Prananda Anugrahorcid, Agung Bella Putra Utamaorcid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.348
Published online: November 14, 2024

UPT Publikasi Ilmiah, Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia

Correspondence to Aji Prasetya Wibawa aji.prasetya.ft@um.ac.id
• Received: September 5, 2024   • Accepted: November 14, 2024

Copyright © 2024 Korean Council of Science Editors

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 186 Views
  • 14 Download
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • This paper introduces a novel application of the “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework to improve the thoroughness and organization of academic editorial review processes. It demonstrates that the CDIO framework, originally applied to engineering education, can also be adapted for reviewing creative and interdisciplinary ideas. The adaptation of the CDIO framework for editorial review is already evident in scholarly publications, and this paper extends its application to include reviews of content produced by artificial intelligence (AI) platforms. The “conceive” stage focuses on developing clear research questions and objectives that align with the key moments of article conception. It ensures that content produced by AI begins with an ethical scientific foundation and maintains this integrity throughout the process. The “design” stage emphasizes maintaining scientific accuracy and clarity of presentation. It considers all critical manuscript design elements and incorporates methods to evaluate the originality and rationality of AI-generated data and analysis. The “implementation” stage is concerned with the effective communication of findings, providing insights into how the manuscript is perceived. It is crucial for data generation or tool usage involving AI. The “operate stage” involves analyzing the findings and their overall impact on the field, ensuring a comprehensive assessment from all perspectives when AI-generated content is integrated into academic discourse, which has broader implications. By applying the CDIO framework innovatively, this paper offers a systematic and comprehensive method for conducting editorial reviews. This ensures that manuscripts generated by AI are subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as those authored by humans. This approach improves the quality, transparency, and reputation of scholarly publications. We examine each stage of the CDIO process, achieving uniformity and clarity, and providing a more precise evaluation of both traditional and AI-assisted academic research.
  • Keywords: Conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO) framework; Editorial review; Scholarly publishing; Manuscript evaluation
Background
In the dynamic realm of academic publishing, the polished appearance of a journal is supported by a meticulously designed set of editing procedures that ensure the quality of its articles [1]. With the changing demands for academics, there is increasing recognition of the need for new approaches to increase the completeness and structure of manuscript review [2]. This paper boldly suggests that this emerging method should be integrated into editorial review processes, not only for its proven effectiveness in engineering education but also for its increasing acceptance in the sphere of conscientious innovation in modern China. The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework’s flexibility and adaptability introduce uniquely innovative perspectives on the evaluation of academic papers. The foundational principles of this method, which involve the conceptual design, construction, and implementation of a research study from start to finish, provide a comprehensive and systematic framework for the editorial review process.
As the academic community increasingly transforms knowledge from notebooks into published research, there is a growing demand for consistent, standardized editorial reviews [3]. The CDIO framework provides a systematic approach to manuscript evaluation at each critical development stage, ensuring that manuscripts meet traditional standards for methodological rigor and clarity. This comprehensive review process includes assessing the manuscript’s conception, design, implementation, and operation. By integrating the CDIO framework into editorial review, we aim to fundamentally transform the traditional mode of assessment. Our goal is to ensure that all contributions are evaluated thoroughly, comprehensively, and incisively.
Objectives
This paper explores the rationale and potential advantages of using the CDIO paradigm in editorial review. The study examines each stage of the CDIO framework within the context of manuscript evaluation. It will suggest how a systematic review approach can enhance clarity, promote consistency, and offer new insights into structural similarities. Furthermore, using specific and real-life examples, we aim to demonstrate the practicality and benefits of this innovative methodology across various academic disciplines. By conducting this research, we seek to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on refining editorial review processes and raising the quality standards of academic publications.
The CDIO framework represents a unique approach to teaching that sets it apart from other engineering schools [4]. Originating from the innovative thinking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), CDIO replaces traditional memorization-based learning with a more practical, project-based educational model [5,6]. Below, each stage of the CDIO framework is described in greater detail, along with recommendations for classroom application. This structure comprises four essential steps [7].
• In the “conceive” stage, students identify and articulate engineering problems. They are encouraged to view these issues from a broader perspective, considering their social implications. At this point, objectives for the project are established. This stage fosters creative thinking and problem-solving skills.
• The “design” stage involves devising solutions to identified problems within a meaningful context: how does engineering function? Students engage in the design of engineering devices, taking into account factors such as feasibility, sustainability, and functionality. This stage emphasizes the development of critical thinking and collaboration, as students work together to create innovative solutions.
• Once the design is fully established, students move on to the “implement” stage. This process involves transforming the abstract solution into a tangible product or system. By applying their theoretical knowledge in practical settings, utilizing engineering tools, and addressing unforeseen challenges, students gain valuable hands-on experience.
• The final stage involves operating and maintaining the developed solutions. Knowledge dissemination during this process encompasses aspects of the engineering product life cycle, including usability, reliability, and sustainability. This stage focuses on the ultimate outcomes of engineering projects.
The primary objective of the CDIO framework is to cultivate engineers who not only possess technical proficiency but also excel in critical thinking, teamwork, and practical problemsolving [8,9]. This approach is geared towards preparing students to manage the complex and dynamic challenges of an engineering career. A key feature of project and applied learning is the integration of course design. The editorial review process incorporates the CDIO framework.
Editorial review is the process that scholarly submissions undergo before they can be published in academic journals or other research outlets. This process involves multiple evaluations by editors and peer reviewers, who assess the quality, authenticity, and relevance of the submitted work [10]. The primary goal of editorial review is to maintain the integrity and authenticity of scholarly publications by subjecting manuscripts to rigorous scrutiny. This mechanism plays a crucial role in the academic community by filtering out research articles that do not meet conventionally recognized standards. Editorial review is essential for maintaining the quality of published research findings, advancing human knowledge, and upholding the standards of academic publications and institutions [11].
The CDIO framework, originally developed to improve engineering education, can be effectively applied in editorial review to ensure rigorous and systematic evaluations of submitted manuscripts. In the review process, the components “conceive,” “design,” “implement,” and “operate” represent critical areas of focus. “Conceive” involves the formulation of precise research questions and objectives. “Design” emphasizes the necessity for methodological rigor and justification. “Implement” pertains to the effective presentation of results, while “operate” relates to the interpretation of findings and their overall significance. When utilizing the CDIO framework, editors can systematically analyze manuscripts throughout all stages of authorship, providing authors with valuable feedback and ensuring that the review process is both fair and thorough. This systematic approach is well-suited to the nature of academic work [12]. With this framework, editorial reviews can move beyond a piecemeal approach.
During the initial evaluation of an article for a scientific journal, it is crucial to ensure that the title is clear and accurate, effectively reflecting the content of the article. The abstract plays a vital role as it succinctly summarizes the report’s objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The “conceive” stage is considered the most critical part of a study [13]. At this stage, formulating precise research questions or hypotheses is essential as they guide the direction of the entire project [14]. The introduction and literature review should provide sufficient background to enable readers to understand the significance and scope of the research. These elements are important for the “conceive” stage and lay a solid foundation for moving into subsequent stages.
The transition to the “design” stage involves stepping back from content and carefully considering the quality and practical difficulties of the research methodology. Reviewers assess the clarity of the methodology to determine if other research groups can easily replicate the study [15]. The selection of an adequate sample size and its characteristics is crucial for the generalizability of the study [16]. The choice of techniques, particularly statistical methods, is equally critical; these methods must be carefully chosen and appropriately applied to align with the research strategy. Reviewers rigorously examine how results are interpreted and integrated into the existing body of research. Understanding and addressing the limitations of a study are essential for a comprehensive understanding of economic research, leading to recommendations for enhancing its design.
In the “implement” stage, methods such as well-structured tables and figures are utilized to ensure clarity and ease of understanding for all terms used [17,18]. A study must meticulously address ethical considerations and secure the necessary approvals, if applicable, to comply fully with ethical standards. Maintaining transparency about potential conflicts of interest is crucial for preserving the integrity of the research. The writing should be clear and concise, and logically organized, with each sentence conveying a single main idea, which enhances the reader’s ability to understand the content [19]. Specifically, feedback during this stage focuses on refining the presentation of results, ensuring the study is accessible to a broad audience.
In the final stage of the study, known as the “operate” stage, data and discussion results are synthesized into conclusions. Additionally, an evaluation assesses whether these conclusions logically align with the study’s objectives. Reviewers meticulously scrutinize the clarity of the presented findings, assessing how effectively the work communicates its practical and theoretical contributions. There is a strong emphasis on the accurate citation of sources to maintain academic integrity. The relevance and timeliness of references strengthen the study’s foundation in current knowledge. By evaluating the study’s strengths and weaknesses, a fair review is ensured, and the final recommendation—whether to accept, amend, or reject— summarizes the overall quality and contribution of the study [20,21]. This holistic approach adheres to the CDIO framework, which highlights the sequential progression from idea and design to implementation and operation. The details of the CDIO stages for the review process are presented in Table 1, and the CDIO framework for the review process is depicted in Fig. 1.
Applying the CDIO framework to editorial review introduces a rigorous methodology that ensures a thorough assessment of AI-generated manuscripts, providing a systematic approach from start to finish. This method enhances the clarity and thoroughness of the review process, offering authors detailed feedback on various aspects of their work. The framework’s emphasis on comprehensive evaluation aligns seamlessly with the diverse characteristics of scholarly contributions, prompting reviewers to consider technical aspects, ethical considerations, practical implications, and broader contextual significance within a specific field. By promoting a comprehensive evaluation, the CDIO framework significantly improves the overall quality and rigor of the editorial review process.
Applying the CDIO framework to journal reviews presents several challenges. The most significant issue is likely the difficulty of adopting and popularizing this approach across various disciplines, as each has its own unique criteria for academic evaluation and research methodologies. The framework may struggle to effectively engage with the wide range of fields it encompasses, potentially encountering new issues that have not been previously addressed in a general context [22]. Additionally, the extensive resource requirements needed to conduct a systemic assessment covering all stages of CDIO pose a significant barrier, especially given the limited availability of reviewers’ time [23]. This makes the consistent and practical implementation of such a framework in the review of machine-generated papers on AI problematic.
Although the CDIO model offers a structured process that provides reviewers with a clear and consistent pattern for evaluating AI-generated manuscripts, its general applicability remains uncertain. This system ensures both consistency and thoroughness throughout the review process. However, significant challenges persist. The framework must be adapted to suit different disciplines, requiring substantial resources to effectively implement these changes. Enhancing the flexibility of the framework could facilitate broader adoption. This could be accomplished by establishing flexible rules that account for disciplinary variations and by streamlining the review process. As a tool that significantly improves the meticulousness and quality of editorial reviews, the CDIO framework is unparalleled. With some fine-tuning, it has the potential to greatly advance the standard of excellence in journal publishing.
Using the CDIO framework to select scientific journals ensures a systematic and thorough evaluation process. This framework guides the operation from the initial research topic through the study’s design and ongoing execution, allowing reviewers to assess its clarity, methodology, presentation of results, and overall impact in the field. By applying CDIO theory to guide their review questions, reviewers can provide more focused and insightful feedback. They encourage the author to enhance various aspects of her work, leading to a comprehensive presentation of the rationale of the entire project. Introducing new technology and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration could significantly benefit research techniques. Innovations such as pre-registration and data sharing, integral to open science reforms, are wired into this approach. Moreover, continuous efforts to refine the peer-review process and provide professional training for reviewers would enhance the quality and reliability of scientific publications. These improvements could strengthen and extend the influence of the scientific community as research progresses.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this article.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

The authors did not provide any supplementary materials for this article.
Fig. 1.
The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for the review process. IMRAD, introduction, method, results, and discussion.
kcse-348f1.jpg
Table 1.
The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” stages for the review process
Stage Question Review example
Positive feedback Negative feedback
Conceive 1. Is the title clear and representative of the content? The title effectively encapsulates the main focus of the study, providing readers with a clear indication of the research area. The abstract succinctly summarizes the study’s objectives, methods, and critical findings, facilitating a quick understanding of the research. Additionally, the research questions are well-defined, and the introduction provides thorough background information, creating a solid foundation for the study. The title is vague and does not accurately reflect the study’s content, potentially misleading readers. The abstract lacks essential information, such as specific objectives or key results, hindering a comprehensive study understanding. The research questions are ambiguously formulated, making it challenging to discern the study’s purpose. The introduction is incomplete and lacks crucial background context.
2. Does the abstract provide a concise summary of the study, including objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?
3. Are the research questions/hypotheses clearly stated?
4. Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context for the study?
5. Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
6. Are there any gaps in the research that should be addressed?
Design 7. Are the research design and methods well-described and replicable? The research design is clearly outlined, enabling easy replication. The sample size is appropriate for the study’s objectives, and the characteristics of the sample are well-described. The statistical methods employed are robust and suitable for the data collected. The authors effectively interpret the results in the context of existing literature, and limitations are acknowledged, demonstrating a thoughtful approach to the study’s design. The research design lacks clarity, making it difficult to replicate the study. The sample size is insufficient, raising concerns about the study’s statistical power. The characteristics of the sample are poorly defined, limiting the generalizability of the findings. The statistical methods employed are inappropriate for the study’s objectives, and the authors fail to interpret the results adequately in the context of existing literature.
8. Are the sample size and characteristics appropriate?
9. Are the statistical methods and analyses appropriate?
10. Do the authors interpret the results accurately and in the context of existing literature?
11. Are the limitations of the study acknowledged and discussed?
12. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
Implement 13. Are the results presented with appropriate tables and figures? The results are presented clearly with well-designed tables and figures that enhance understanding. Ethical considerations and necessary approvals are thoroughly addressed. The writing is clear and concise, facilitating easy comprehension of complex concepts. The paper is well-organized, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the study. The results are poorly presented, making it challenging to grasp critical findings. Ethical considerations are overlooked, and there is a lack of information on necessary approvals, raising ethical concerns. The writing is convoluted, hindering the reader’s understanding. The paper is disorganized, with a confusing structure that detracts from the study’s overall impact.
14. Are ethical considerations and approvals (if applicable) adequately addressed?
15. Is there any potential conflict of interest disclosed?
16. Is the writing clear and concise?
17. Is the organization of the paper logical and easy to follow?
Operate 18. Do the conclusions logically follow from the results and discussion? The conclusions logically follow from the results and discussion, providing a cohesive study summary. The study’s implications are clearly stated, highlighting its potential impact on the field. All references are cited appropriately, reflecting a thorough understanding of existing literature. The study demonstrates strengths and weaknesses, contributing valuable insights to the field. The study makes a significant contribution, and a robust review supports the recommendation for acceptance. The conclusions are disconnected from the results and lack coherence. The study’s implications are vague, and references are not cited appropriately. The study has notable weaknesses that outweigh its strengths, diminishing its overall contribution to the field. The recommendation for rejection is justified based on the identified shortcomings.
19. Are the implications of the study clearly stated?
20. Are all references cited appropriately?
21. Are the references recent and relevant?
22. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
23. Does the study make a significant contribution to the field?
24. Would you recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection?

  • 1. Vilaró M, Cortés J, Selva-O’Callaghan A, et al. Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 2. Desselle SP, Chen AM, Amin M, et al. Generosity, collegiality, and scientific accuracy when writing and reviewing original research. Res Social Adm Pharm 2020;16:261-5.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.054. ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Savage WE, Olejniczak AJ. More journal articles and fewer books: publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010’s. PLoS One 2022;17:e0263410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263410. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Edström K. The role of CDIO in engineering education research: combining usefulness and scholarliness. Eur J Eng Educ 2020;45:113-27.https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1401596. Article
  • 5. Gunnarsson S, Swartz M. On the connections between the CDIO framework and challenge-based learning. In : Järvinen HM, Silvestre S, Llorens A, Nagy B, editors. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education: towards a new future in engineering education, new scenarios that European alliances of tech universities open up. 2022 Sep 19–22; Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya; 2022. 1217-23.https://doi.org/10.5821/conference-9788412322262.1140. Article
  • 6. Fusic SJ, Anandh N, Subbiah AN, Jain DB. Implementation of the CDIO framework in engineering courses to improve student-centered learning. J Eng Educ Transform 2022;35:19-26.Article
  • 7. Cruz S, Viseu F, Lencastre JA. Project-based learning methodology as a promoter of learning math concepts: a scoping review. Front Educ 2022;7:953390. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.953390. Article
  • 8. Malmqvist J, Lundqvist U, Rosén A, et al. The CDIO syllabus 3.0: an updated statement of goals. In: Proceedings of the 18th International CDIO Conference; 2022 Jun 13–15; Iceland, Reykjavik. Reykjavík University; 2022. p. 18–36. https://en.ru.is/cdio2022.
  • 9. Souppez JB, Awotwe TW. The conceive design implement operate (CDIO) initiative: an engineering pedagogy applied to the education of maritime engineers. Int J Marit Eng 2022;164:405-13.https://doi.org/10.5750/ijme.v164iA4.1187. Article
  • 10. Helgesson G, Radun I, Radun J, Nilsonne G. Editors publishing in their own journals: a systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects. Learn Publ 2022;35:229-40.https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1449. Article
  • 11. Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: a possible role of editors. Sci Eng Ethics 2016;22:169-88.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5. ArticlePubMed
  • 12. O’Connor S, Power J, Blom N. A systematic review of CDIO knowledge library publications (2010–2020): an overview of trends and recommendations for future research. Australas J Eng Educ 2023;28:166-80.https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2023.2220265. Article
  • 13. Van Lange PA, Liebrand WB, Messick DM, Wilke HA. Introduction and literature review. In: Liebrand W, Messick D, Wilke H, editors. Social dilemmas: theoretical issues and research findings. 1st ed. Garland Science; 1992. p. 3–28. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203769560. Article
  • 14. Scherer RW, Meerpohl JJ, Pfeifer N, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;11:MR000005. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub4. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 15. Abbuhl R. Chapter 15. Why, when, and how to replicate research. In: Mackey A, Gass SM, editors. Research methods in second language acquisition: a practical guide. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444347340.ch15. Article
  • 16. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016;26:1753-60.https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444. ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Ross A, Willson VL. Basic and advanced statistical tests: writing results sections and creating tables and figures. Sense Publishers; 2017.
  • 18. Tuncel A, Atan A. How to clearly articulate results and construct tables and figures in a scientific paper? Turk J Urol 2013;39(Supplement 1):16-9.https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.048. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 19. Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ. Creating logical flow when writing scientific articles. J Korean Med Sci 2021;36:e275. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e275. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 20. Rahman MS. The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: a literature review. J Educ Learn 2017;6:102-12.https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102. Article
  • 21. Schunn C, Godley A, DeMartino S. The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. J Adolesc Adult Lit 2016;60:13-23.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.525. Article
  • 22. Charalambous CY, Praetorius AK. Studying mathematics instruction through different lenses: setting the ground for understanding instructional quality more comprehensively. ZDM Math Educ 2018;50:355-66.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0914-8. Article
  • 23. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J 2009;26:91-108.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      Figure
      • 0
      A novel “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for evaluating artificial intelligence–generated scholarly manuscripts
      Image
      Fig. 1. The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for the review process. IMRAD, introduction, method, results, and discussion.

      Fig. 1.

      A novel “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for evaluating artificial intelligence–generated scholarly manuscripts
      Stage Question Review example
      Positive feedback Negative feedback
      Conceive 1. Is the title clear and representative of the content? The title effectively encapsulates the main focus of the study, providing readers with a clear indication of the research area. The abstract succinctly summarizes the study’s objectives, methods, and critical findings, facilitating a quick understanding of the research. Additionally, the research questions are well-defined, and the introduction provides thorough background information, creating a solid foundation for the study. The title is vague and does not accurately reflect the study’s content, potentially misleading readers. The abstract lacks essential information, such as specific objectives or key results, hindering a comprehensive study understanding. The research questions are ambiguously formulated, making it challenging to discern the study’s purpose. The introduction is incomplete and lacks crucial background context.
      2. Does the abstract provide a concise summary of the study, including objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?
      3. Are the research questions/hypotheses clearly stated?
      4. Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context for the study?
      5. Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
      6. Are there any gaps in the research that should be addressed?
      Design 7. Are the research design and methods well-described and replicable? The research design is clearly outlined, enabling easy replication. The sample size is appropriate for the study’s objectives, and the characteristics of the sample are well-described. The statistical methods employed are robust and suitable for the data collected. The authors effectively interpret the results in the context of existing literature, and limitations are acknowledged, demonstrating a thoughtful approach to the study’s design. The research design lacks clarity, making it difficult to replicate the study. The sample size is insufficient, raising concerns about the study’s statistical power. The characteristics of the sample are poorly defined, limiting the generalizability of the findings. The statistical methods employed are inappropriate for the study’s objectives, and the authors fail to interpret the results adequately in the context of existing literature.
      8. Are the sample size and characteristics appropriate?
      9. Are the statistical methods and analyses appropriate?
      10. Do the authors interpret the results accurately and in the context of existing literature?
      11. Are the limitations of the study acknowledged and discussed?
      12. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
      Implement 13. Are the results presented with appropriate tables and figures? The results are presented clearly with well-designed tables and figures that enhance understanding. Ethical considerations and necessary approvals are thoroughly addressed. The writing is clear and concise, facilitating easy comprehension of complex concepts. The paper is well-organized, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the study. The results are poorly presented, making it challenging to grasp critical findings. Ethical considerations are overlooked, and there is a lack of information on necessary approvals, raising ethical concerns. The writing is convoluted, hindering the reader’s understanding. The paper is disorganized, with a confusing structure that detracts from the study’s overall impact.
      14. Are ethical considerations and approvals (if applicable) adequately addressed?
      15. Is there any potential conflict of interest disclosed?
      16. Is the writing clear and concise?
      17. Is the organization of the paper logical and easy to follow?
      Operate 18. Do the conclusions logically follow from the results and discussion? The conclusions logically follow from the results and discussion, providing a cohesive study summary. The study’s implications are clearly stated, highlighting its potential impact on the field. All references are cited appropriately, reflecting a thorough understanding of existing literature. The study demonstrates strengths and weaknesses, contributing valuable insights to the field. The study makes a significant contribution, and a robust review supports the recommendation for acceptance. The conclusions are disconnected from the results and lack coherence. The study’s implications are vague, and references are not cited appropriately. The study has notable weaknesses that outweigh its strengths, diminishing its overall contribution to the field. The recommendation for rejection is justified based on the identified shortcomings.
      19. Are the implications of the study clearly stated?
      20. Are all references cited appropriately?
      21. Are the references recent and relevant?
      22. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
      23. Does the study make a significant contribution to the field?
      24. Would you recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection?
      Table 1. The “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” stages for the review process

      Table 1.

      Science Editing : Science Editing
      © Korean Council of Science Editors.
      TOP