Peer Review Policy

The peer reviewer (external expert) is responsible for evaluating the manuscript of the submitted article within their field of expertise, then providing constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the author regarding the submitted article.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Only review articles that match your expertise;
  • Notification of the due date of the review process;
  • No conflicts of interest;

When reviewing article manuscripts, please consider the following guidelines:

Title and Abstract
  • Title: does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: is it well written and able to make a good impression (stand alone)?
Introduction

The peer reviewer (external expert) should evaluate whether or not the introduction illustrates the importance and uniqueness of the topic. The author should provide background material and formulate the problem or question, and tell the reader the purpose of your research. Usually, the reason is to fill a knowledge gap or to answer a previously unanswered question.

Previous Research
  • If similar research has previously been done by other authors, does it still qualify for publication?
  • Is the article new, deep enough, and interesting enough to be published?
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

The literature review investigates the gap to be uncovered and solved. All schools of thought/theories should be clear, related, established, and well developed. It serves as the source of research questions and especially the basis or hypothesis for answering the research objectives.

Methodology
  • Does the author accurately describe how the data/materials were collected?
  • Are the theoretical foundations or references used appropriate (aligned) for the study?
  • Is the research design suitable for the answer to the research question?
  • Is there sufficient presentation of information worthy of reference?
  • Has the article followed the identification procedure?
  • If there are new methods, do the authors explain them in detail?
  • Is there appropriate sampling?
  • Are the tools and materials used clearly described? and
  • Does the article explain what type of data was recorded, and correctly describe the measurements?
Results

The results of the study should be described with appropriate analysis. The peer reviewer (external expert) should ensure that the results are presented in a logical order, do not contain duplicate data between figures, tables, and text (or restate most of the data from tables in the text of the manuscript).

Discussion and Conclusion
  • The discussion must answer/explain the research problem;
  • Consistency in results, discussion, and conclusion;
  • The author must mention and explain the results that do not support his/her research;
  • The author must compare the results of his/her research with previous studies;
  • The author must explain the uniqueness or contradictory reasons (if any) in his/her research with previous studies;
  • The conclusion should explain how better scientific research can be followed up;
  • The author must explain the weaknesses/deficiencies of the research and suggest the next research that needs to be done.
General Manuscript Content
  • Is there any element of plagiarism in this article?
  • Does it contribute to science?
  • Does the manuscript comply with journal standards?
  • Does the manuscript fit the purpose and scope of the journal?
  • Decision

After completing their research evaluation, the external expert reviews the article using the form provided, and the peer reviewer's detailed comments are posted on the article using the anonymous review menu. The revised article is corrected by the editorial members and/or will be returned to the external expert if requested. Thus, the editorial member with the consideration of other editorial members after receiving notes from the bestary partner (external expert) has full authority to make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission, if based on the assessment of the peer reviewers (external experts) and editorial members no changes are required;
  • Request Revisions, accept conditionally with the necessary changes (based on the recommendations of the peer reviewers (external experts) and editorial members;
  • Decline Submission.

Critical evaluation and managerial decisions in publishing cannot be replaced by machines or algorithms.

  • Manuscript Confidentiality: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading authors' manuscripts (either partially or entirely) into public generative AI tools to prevent breaches of confidentiality.
  • Peer Review Generation: Reviewers are not allowed to use AI to write, evaluate, or summarize peer review reports.