Sinta ID : 
Sinta ID : Accreditation
Reviewers
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Reviewer Guidelines
By completing the review, you are the potential winner of Best and/or Outstanding Reviewer Awards of the journal. For more info see Reviewer Award section.
By accepting the review assignment, you are assumed to do the review in compliance with the listed qualities.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Contribution to editorial decisions
The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.
- Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
- Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor in chief who may not give approval without author consent.
- 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 cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- 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 associated with the papers.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS:
At the end of the Review Report, you are requested to select an option expressing your general opinion on the whole submission. As this step is a key point, we would like to express the meaning of the given choices presumed by the Editors.
- Accept Submission:
This option means that you have absolutely no recommendations to enhance the paper and it is good in its current form. This is generally selected after a previous round of a review to express that all the points are sufficiently addressed by the author.
Even if you have very minor recommendations, please do not select this option. Revisions Required option may be a better choice for you.
- Revisions Required
This option means that you have recommendations to enhance the paper but you do not need to see the revised version of the paper. The required revisions may be negligible.
- Resubmit for Review
This option means that you have recommendations to enhance the paper and you do need to see the revised version of the paper to approve that your recommendations are sufficiently addressed.
- Resubmit Elsewhere
This option means that you feel that the subject of the paper is out of journal scope. We do not prefer this option to be selected as the scope check is done by the editors.
- Decline Submission
This option means that you do not believe that the submission may be revised to have a sufficient quality to be published. If you intend to select this option, please state your opinion in details and in a way that helps the author to improve the study at hand for possible future papers.
- See Comments
If none of the above options is suitable for your opinion on the paper, select this option and please express your opinion in details in the given text boxes.
