Review Guidelines

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are responsible for evaluating submitted articles within their area of expertise and providing constructive feedback and honest assessments to the authors regarding the submitted work.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Review only articles that fall within your expertise.
  • Communicate the deadline for the review process.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest.

Review Process

When reviewing an article, consider the following:

  • Title: Does it clearly represent the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it convey the significance and uniqueness of the topic?

Content of the Article

Please remind authors to adhere closely to our author guidelines (manuscript template).

  • Is there any element of plagiarism present in this paper?
  • If prior research has been conducted by other authors, does it still qualify for publication?
  • Is the article sufficiently novel, thorough, and engaging for publication?
  • Does it contribute to existing knowledge?
  • Does the article meet the journal's standards?
  • Is the article aligned with the journal's aims and scope?

Methods

Comprehensive and Rigorous:

  • Does the author accurately describe how the data was collected?
  • Are the theoretical foundations or references used appropriate for this research?
  • Is the study design suitable for addressing the research question?
  • Is there sufficient information for you to replicate the study?
  • Does the article identify the following procedures?
  • Are there any new methods? If so, does the author explain them in detail?
  • Is there appropriate sampling?
  • Have the tools and materials used been adequately described?
  • Does the article specify what type of data was recorded, and is it accurate in describing the measurements?

Results:

The results of the article should be clearly presented with appropriate analysis and statistical tools.

Discussion and Conclusion:

  • The conclusion should address/explain the research problem.
  • There should be consistency among the results, discussion, and conclusions.
  • The author should compare the findings with previous research.
  • The author should explain any uniqueness or contradictions (if any) compared to prior work.
  • The conclusion should elucidate how the scientific inquiry can be improved for future follow-up research.

Decision

Reviewers should inquire with researchers about the topic/content of their research using the OJS system. After completing their evaluation, reviewers are obligated to fill out the JIMMU Reviewer Form (mandatory) and the JIMMU Reviewer Comments (preferred). Thus, the editor has full authority to make one of the following decisions after receiving the reviewers’ comments:

  • Publish as is
  • Accept with minor revisions (editor will check)
  • Accept conditionally with required changes as recommended by the reviewers
  • The article must be thoroughly revised
  • Reject