Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.

If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double blind peer review. Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, The editor has full authority to make one of the following decisions upon received reviewers, publish as is, conditionally accept with minor revisions (editor will check), conditionally accept with necessary changes as recommended by reviewer, or the article should be thoroughly changed (rejection).


Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.


impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Related to COPE Reviewer Guidance:

Peer review processes

Editing peer reviews

Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data

Peer review manipulation suspected during publication

Peer review manipulation suspected after publication


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, and please remind authors to follow our author guidelines (manuscript template) precisely.

When reviewing the article, please consider the following guidelines:

Title & Abstract

Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?

Abstract: is it well writen and having ability to making good impression (stand-alone)?


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?

Literature Review

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.


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?

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. 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 & 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 Evaluation

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?


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 decisions upon received reviewers comments.