Guidelines for Reviewers

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

• Is the manuscript requested to be reviewed match your expertise? If you receive a script that covers topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.
• Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible or suggest an alternative reviewer.
• Is there any potential conflict of interest?

Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

• Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
• Abstract: does it reflect the contents of the article?
• Introduction: does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered?  What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research, and explain the findings of the research or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. The introduction consists of a statement of the problem or purpose; the relevance of the topics; the importance of the topic; contribution to the literature; drawing and building upon relevant literature; and organization.
• Theoretical/Conceptual Framework: is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriately for this study? Does the author utilize relevant literature?
• Method: does the author accurately describe how the data is collected? is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question? have the tools and materials used been adequately explained? and does the article exposure describe what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurement?
• Result and Discussion: this is where the author must explain the findings of his/her research. It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been carried out.
• Conclusion: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed? are the claims in this section supported by fair results and quite reasonable? does the author compare the research results with other previous ones? do the results of research written in the article contradict the previous theories? does the conclusion explain how better scientific research is to be followed up?
• References: are the references well laid out according to the APA model? are the references styled by using a plagiarism checker application? Are the references mostly from the most recent article sources?
• Tables and Pictures: If the manuscript includes tables or figures, what do they add to the manuscript? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous? Is it suitable with the referred explanation by showing data that is easy to interpret and understandable for the readers?
• Writing Styles: Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?  All exposure should be in good Bahasa Indonesia or English and written in good, cohesive, and coherent grammar. It is easy to understand and interesting to read.
• Mechanics: spelling, punctuation, and reference format.

Final Review

• All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential.
• If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor.
• Do not contact the author directly.
• Ethical issues: Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please let the editor knows the details. Fraud: It is very difficult to detect a fraud category, but if you suspect the results in the article are not true, please inform the editor.

Complete "The Review" by the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
When you write a comment, please show the part of the comment that is only intended for the editor and parts that can be returned to the author.

Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter.

To download a form for Reviewer please click here.