Reviewer Guidelines

Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun

Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun (JIP) relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of articles that publish. All articles submitted to JIP will be peer-reviewed. 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 4-5 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. This statement is based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

 

Before you start

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  1. Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high quality review.
  2. Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  3. Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

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.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers of Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun are asked to consider the following points during their evaluation:

  1. Does the paper have clear aims and objectives/ research questions that can be achieved within the scope of a Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun paper?
  2. Does the paper make a contribution to knowledge?
  3. Is the work suitably grounded in the literature to justify its contribution and frame the analysis/ evaluation?
  4. Is the research/evaluation methodology justified, clear and appropriate? (including ethical considerations/ approval where appropriate)
  5. Does the analysis/ evaluation have a clear flow and logical argument?
  6. Does the analysis/ evaluation link to an appropriate discussion and conclusions?
  7. Is it presented in a way which is suitable for Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun audience?

Peer reviewers will have five possible options, for any paper:

  1. Accept Submission (i.e. no need for any revision)
  2. Revisions Required (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested minor revisions)
  3. Resubmit for Review (i.e. accepted or rejected after revisions have been made and paper will be sent out for another peer review round)
  4. Resubmit Elsewhere (i.e. found paper discrepancies with the scope of the journal)
  5. Decline Submission (i.e. if the manuscript is not sufficiently developed for publication)
  6. See comments (i.e. if the reviewer cannot choose from any of the above)

In addition, papers may be returned to authors by the Editors prior to review, if judged to be out of scope, out of the limits of the word length guidance or not sufficiently prepared for publication. To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of 6 weeks for revision. After 6 weeks, revised manuscripts will normally be considered new submissions.

Read more to get the information about Publication Procedure, Reviewer Process and Author Guidelines for this Journal.