Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of articles that publish. Whether you’re an experienced reviewer or interested in reviewing for the first time, we invite you to explore these pages. This statement is based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Before you start
If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors.
First read the article and then take a break from it, giving you time to think. Consider the article from your own perspective. When you sit down to write the review, make sure you know what the journal is looking for, and have a copy of any specific reviewing criteria you need to consider.
Your review report
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks, but not your personal details.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
All articles submitted to Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun (JIP) will be peer-reviewed. The accepted articles will be available online (free download) following the journal peer-reviewing process. The language used in this Journal is English.
Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, JIP Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. JIP adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid and fair, and also ensures a high quality of articles published. In so doing, JIP needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 4 weeks. Maintaining JIP as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
- Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high quality review.
- Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
- Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
- Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
If JIP Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:
- If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors;
- Not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due credit for their efforts;
- Notify the editor journal as soon as possible if they find they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn’t wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process;
- Read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g. reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files) and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items they need to carry out a full review;
- contact the editor journal if circumstances arise that will prevent from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if still asked to do so. But not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author;
- Notify the journal editor immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them providing a fair and unbiased review;
- Be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect;
- Consider the article from your own perspective. Ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases;
- Not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript;
- Ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report for the authors;
- Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments;
- Reviewing manuscript critically, but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work;
- Remember it is the authors’ paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. Make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work;
- Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
- Providing all required information within established deadlines;
- Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal;
- Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
- Reporting possible research misconducts;
- Refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from a journal on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded;
- Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons;
- Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
- Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
- Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors;
- Not identifying themselves to authors;
- Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work;
- Notify the editor if finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge, or if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the editor journal asks for further information or advice;
- Writing review report in English only;
- Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript. Your review report will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data;
- Your recommendation. When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article, and determine whether the journal allows them to sign their reviews and, if it does, decide as they feel comfortable doing:
- If Rejected (explain reason in report);
- Accept without revision;
- If Revision – either major or minor (explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article).
- The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
Here list of items that need to be reviewed:
- Novelty of the topic;
- Scientific reliability;
- Valuable contribution to the science;
- Adding new aspects to the existed field of study;
- Ethical aspects;
- Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines;
- References provided to substantiate the content;
- Grammar, punctuation, and spelling;
- Scientific misconduct.