Peer Reviewer Responsibilities
Peer reviewers are responsible for criticizing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in their area of expertise, then providing constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the submitted article. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of articles, how to improve the strength and quality of papers, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.
Before reviewing, please note the following:
1. Is the article requested for review according to your expertise? If you receive a script that covers a topic that is not your area of expertise, please notify the editor immediately. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.
2. Do you have time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and take longer, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
3. Is there a potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, a conflict of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclosing all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please feel free to contact the editorial office.
1. When reviewing articles, please consider the following:
2. Title: does it describe the article clearly?
3. Abstract: does it reflect the content of the article?
Introduction: does it explain the accuracy of the problem presented by the author and clearly state the issue being considered? Typically, the introduction should summarize the relevant research context, and explain the research findings or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. This research should explain the experiments, hypotheses, and methods.
Content of Articles
To determine the originality and suitability of the journal, is there an element of plagiarization above 20% of this writing field? Quick literature search can use certain tools like Google Scholar, SINTA, Scopus to see if there are similarities from other parts.
Comprehensive and perfect:
This is where the author must explain the findings in his/her research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been carried out; the use of statistical tools? If you have better statistical tools to be used in this study, notify it, and the interpretation need not be included in this section.
Discussion and Conclusion:
Tables and Pictures:
Is it suitable for the referred explanation by showing data that is easy to interpret and understandable for the readers?
Things that need to be considered:
- 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 is 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.