Proses Reviu Artikel

Tanggung Jawab Peer Reviewer
Peer reviewer bertanggung jawab untuk mengkritisi dengan membaca dan mengevaluasi naskah-naskah di bidang keahliannya, kemudian memberikan nasehat yang konstruktif dan umpan balik yang jujur ​​kepada penulis artikel yang dikirimkan. Peer reviewer mendiskusikan kekuatan dan kelemahan artikel, cara meningkatkan kekuatan dan kualitas makalah, serta mengevaluasi relevansi dan keaslian naskah.

Sebelum meninjau, harap perhatikan hal-hal berikut:

  • Apakah artikel tersebut diminta untuk direview sesuai dengan keahlian Anda? Jika Anda menerima skrip yang mencakup topik yang bukan bidang keahlian Anda, harap beri tahu editor secepatnya. Harap rekomendasikan pengulas alternatif.
  • Apakah Anda punya waktu untuk mengulas makalah ini? Proses peninjauan harus diselesaikan dalam dua minggu. Jika Anda setuju dan membutuhkan waktu yang lebih lama, beri tahu editor secepat mungkin, atau sarankan peninjau alternatif.
  • Apakah ada potensi konflik kepentingan? Sementara itu, konflik kepentingan tidak akan mendiskualifikasi Anda sebagai peninjau, mengungkapkan semua konflik kepentingan kepada editor sebelum meninjau. Jika Anda memiliki pertanyaan tentang potensi konflik kepentingan, jangan ragu untuk menghubungi kantor editorial.

Proses Review
Saat mereview artikel, harap pertimbangkan hal berikut:

  • Judul: apakah itu menggambarkan artikel dengan jelas?
  • Abstrak: apakah itu mencerminkan isi artikel?
  • Pendahuluan: apakah menjelaskan keakuratan masalah yang disampaikan oleh penulis dan dengan jelas menyatakan masalah yang sedang dipertimbangkan? Biasanya, pendahuluan harus meringkas konteks penelitian yang relevan, dan menjelaskan temuan penelitian atau temuan lain, jika ada, ditawarkan untuk diskusi. Penelitian ini harus menjelaskan eksperimen, hipotesis dan metode.

Isi Artikel
Untuk menentukan orisinalitas dan kesesuaian jurnal, adakah unsur penjiplakan di atas 25% bidang tulisan ini? Pencarian literatur cepat dapat menggunakan alat-alat tertentu seperti Scopus untuk melihat apakah terdapat kesamaan dari bagian lain.

  • apakah penelitian tersebut sebelumnya pernah dilakukan oleh penulis lain, apakah masih layak untuk dipublikasikan?
  • Apakah artikel tersebut terbilang baru, cukup dalam, dan menarik untuk dipublikasikan?
  • does it contribute to knowledge?
  • does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?
  • Scope - Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?

Method
Comprehensive and perfect:

  • does the author accurately describe how the data is collected?
  • is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriate for this study?
  • is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question?
  • is there a decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
  • does the article identify following procedures?
  • are there any new methods? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in details?
  • is there any appropriate sampling?
  • 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?

Results:
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 a better statistical tools to be used in this study, notify it, and the interpretation need not to be included in this section.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • are the claims in this section is supported by the 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 a better scientific research to be followed-up?

Tables and Pictures:
Is it suitable with the referred explanation by showing data which is easy to to interprete and understanable for the readers?

Writing Styles

  • Authors must be critical mostly to the literature systematic review of the issues, which is relevant to the field of study.
  • Reviews should be focused on a single topic.
  • All exposure should be in English and written in a god and coherent grammar.
  • Easy to understand
  • Interesting to read

Things that need to be considered:

  • Perspective, a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues in marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship.

Originality Research

  • The original data and testing, it must present data that offers a new approach to improve systems, processes, and precision of the tools which are used.
  • Research policy and observational analysis, it should clarify the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation on the research results. It is not limited to the topic of marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship.
  • In Practice (case study), The paper should explain the situation regarding the future challenges in marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship, within its conclusions, and things which can be learned.

Reference

  • First Person (Interview)
  • Book Reviews
  • Insight Technology (Product Review)

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 catogory, 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.

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

WhatsApp

Artikel yang dikirimkan akan dipilih oleh Dewan Editorial. Artikel yang memenuhi kriteria penulisan standar akan diteruskan kepada 2 (dua) reviewer sedangkan artikel yang tidak memenuhi kriteria akan dikembalikan kepada penulis tanpa melalui review.

Artikel yang telah direview oleh Review, akan dikembalikan kepada penulis jika perlu perbaikan. Setelah penulis melakukan perbaikan sesuai dengan masukan dan rating reviewer maka penulis harus mengirim ulang (send) dan akan direview kembali.

Artikel ditinjau oleh pengulas secara anonim (ulasan rekan buta) dan diberikan rekomendasi; diterima / cocok untuk dimuat, ditolak / tidak cocok untuk dimuat, atau diterima dengan revisi.

Keputusan menerima / menolak teks diputuskan oleh Pemimpin Redaksi berdasarkan rekomendasi dari reviewer pada rapat Dewan Redaksi.