Peer reviewer is responsible in evaluating the article submitted in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author regarding the article submitted.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Only review article that meet your expertise
  • Notify the due date of the review process
  • No conflict of interests

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 importance and the uniqueness of the topic?

Content of the Article

  • Please remind authors to follow our author guidelines (manuscript tempale) precisely.
  • Are there any elements of plagiarism of this paper field? 
  • 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?
  • Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?


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?


The results of article should be clear with the appropiate analysis and statistical tools.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • The conclusion should answer/explain the research problem
  • Consistency in result, discussion, and conclusion
  • Authors should compare the research results with other previous ones.
  • Authors should explain the uniqueness or the contradict reason (if any) with other previous ones.
  • The conclusion should explain how a better scientific research to be followed-up?


Reviewer should ask researcher about their research topic/content by using the OJS system. Once reviewer have completed their research evaluation, reviewer has obligation to fill out the JEMA Reviewer Form. Thus, editor has full authority to make one of the following decisions upon received reviewers comments

  • Publish as is
  • Conditionally accept with minor revisions (editor will check)
  • Conditionally accept with necessary changes as recommended by reviewer
  • The article should be thoroughly changed
  • Reject