Review Guidelines

General Responsibilities

  • Review Timeframe. All reviewers are expected to complete their review within 4 weeks of receiving the manuscript. Please inform the editorial office as early as possible if you require an extension.
  • Independence from AI Assistance. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to generate or assist review comments is strictly prohibited. All evaluations must reflect the reviewer’s personal scholarly judgment.
  • Novelty Clause. Manuscripts should not be rejected solely on the basis of “lack of novelty”, provided the work is scientifically robust and technically sound.
  • The manuscript and its contents must be treated as confidential. Do not share or discuss it with others without prior approval from the journal editor.
  • Constructive Feedback. Provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive feedback in a collegial tone. Criticism should aim to help authors improve the quality of their work.

Specific Review Instructions Based on the Review Form

  • Title Assessment. Evaluating the suitability and clarity of the article’s title. Reviewer suggests an alternative if it does not accurately reflect the content.
  • Abstract Evaluation. Assessing whether the abstract is comprehensive and informative. Reviewer suggests additions or deletions as necessary.
  • Scientific Validity. Confirming whether the manuscript is scientifically accurate, logically argued, and methodologically sound.
  • Evaluate whether the references are adequate, relevant, and up to date. You may suggest specific sources if necessary.
  • Language Quality. Assess whether the English language used is suitable for scholarly communication. Note any sections requiring revision.
  • Ethical Concerns. Identify and describe any ethical issues (e.g., informed consent, research on humans/animals, data privacy).
  • Competing Interests. Point out any conflict of interest that may influence the authors’ work or your ability to review impartially.
  • If plagiarism is suspected, provide evidence, such as links or comparisons, to support the claim.

Reviewers are expected to provide general comments and critical evaluations of the manuscript in English or Bahasa Indonesia, using an academic and objective tone. The review should focus on the proportion, clarity, and appropriateness of each section of the article (title, abstract, introduction, method, results, discussion, conclusion, and references).

The review should follow the format below:

Title:

(write the title of the article under review)

Editor’s Note:

(focus on the proportionality and adequacy of each section, such as the balance between theory and data, the coherence of arguments, and the appropriateness of the article’s structure)

Reviewer’s Comments:

No Question Critical Comment Recommendation
1 What controversy does this article address, and how effectively does it frame the debates to highlight its scholarly significance? Provide a critical reflection on the clarity of the issue and the conceptual framework used. Suggest ways to strengthen the theoretical positioning or engagement with relevant academic debates.
2 What change or transformation in thought, method, or application does this article reveal, and how convincing is the argument? Evaluate the consistency of the argument and the novelty or contribution offered. Recommend ways to enhance the data support, methodological rigor, or analytical depth.
3 What current academic or practical trends does this article connect to, and does it engage critically with them? Assess how well the article connects to ongoing scholarly or practical discourses. Suggest additional literature or perspectives that could strengthen the discussion.
4 What urgency or pressing issue makes this study necessary today, and how well is that urgency demonstrated? Comment on the study’s relevance, timeliness, or social significance. Recommend ways to clarify the background or the importance of the study.
5 What solution does this article propose, and how feasible or sustainable is it in both academic and practical contexts? Evaluate the feasibility and impact of the proposed solution or conclusion. Provide suggestions to strengthen the conclusion or future implications of the study.

Final Reviewer’s Note (Optional):

Include your overall impression of the article’s quality, publication eligibility, and any additional suggestions (e.g., on writing clarity, citation consistency, or formatting issues).

Reviewer’s Recommendation:

Please select one of the following options:

  • Accept without revision

  • Accept with minor revision

  • Accept with major revision

  • Reject

Reviewer Declaration
At the end of the review, reviewer declares the own competing interests. If none, write:
“I declare that I have no competing interest as a reviewer.”

Note:
Reviewer comments serve as the primary consideration for the editorial decision. Reviewers are expected to maintain objectivity, confidentiality, and academic integrity throughout the review process.