REVIEWER GUIDELINES

OVERVIEW

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
  • Please remind authors to follow our author guidelines (manuscript template) precisely. Click here.

Review Guidelines

When reviewing the article, please consider the following guidelines:

Title and Abstract

  • Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
  • Abstract: is it well writen and having ability to making good impression (stand-alone)? 

Introduction

Reviewer should evaluate whether the introduction already describe the importance and the uniqueness of the topic or not. Authors should provide background material and stated the problem or question, and tell the reader the purpose of your study. Usually, the reason is to fill a gap in the knowledge or to answer a previously unanswered question.

Preview Studies

  • 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?

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 

Literature review investigates the gap that will be exposed and solved. The flow of all the ideas are required to be clear, linked, well-crafted and well developed. It serves as the source of the research question and especially the base or the hypotheses that respond to the research objective.

Methodology

  • 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?

Results

The results of article should be clear with the appropiate analysis and statistical tools. Reviewer should ensure that results are presented in a logical order, do not contained duplicate data among figures, tables, and text (or re-state much of the data from a table in the text of the manuscript), and Include the results of statistical analyses in the text, usually by providing p values wherever statistically significant differences are described.

Discussion and Conclusion

  • The conclusion should answer/explain the research problem
  • Consistency in result, discussion, and conclusion
  • Authors should mention and explain any inconclusive result
  • 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
  • Authors should  describe the limitations and suggest future studies that need to be carried out

General Manuscripts Content

  • Are there any elements of plagiarism of this paper field? 
  • 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?

Decision

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 (Mandatory) and JEMA Reviewer Comment (Mandatory). 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