Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

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, 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 article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise? If you receive a script that covers the 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? 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. This research should explain the experiments, hypotheses and methods.

Content of the Article

In order to determine the originality and suitability for the journal, are there any elements of plagiarism over 5% of this paper field? Quick literature search can use certain tools such as Scopus to see if there are similarities from other parts.

• if the study had been previously done by other authors, it is still eligible for publication?
• is the article is fairly new, fairly deep, and interesting to be published?
• 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?

Does the abstract consist of 1) aim of the study; 2) method; 3) result or finding; 4) Significancy  and 5) conclusion?

 

Clearly describing and respectively:

• The background of the study;
• State of the art, relevant research to justify the novelty of the manuscript;
• Gap analysis, novelty statement;
• Hypothesis or problem statement (optional);
• Approach to resolve the problem; and
• The aim of the study.

• The method is written clearly, so then other researchers can replicate the experiment or research with the same result;
• Not only describe the definition of terms but also describe how to conduct the research;
• Describe the location, participant, research instrument, and data analysis;

• The data presented has been processed (not raw data) into a table or figure and given a supportive description which easy to follow.
• The result related to the original questions or objectives outlined in the Introduction section.
• The author describes the result of the study consistent with what other investigators have reported or there any differences.
• The author provides interpretation scientifically for each of the results or findings presented.
• The author describes the implications of the research.
• The author describes the limitations of the research or drawbacks to the method or position.
• The author describes further needs/areas for research or expansion of ideas.

Consist of:

• Answer the objectives of the research;
• Implication or recommendation (optional);
• Written in a paragraph, not in bullet/numbering