Reviewers Guideline
Reviewer Guidelines
JURIBMAS – Jurnal Hasil Pengabdian Masyarakat
Reviewer Responsibilities
How to Conduct a Review
Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing. Before accepting or declining an invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers should carefully evaluate their expertise, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. The review process should be conducted professionally, objectively, and confidentially to maintain the integrity of academic publishing.
Before Accepting a Review Invitation
- Ensure the manuscript falls within your area of expertise.
- Confirm that no conflict of interest exists.
- Assess whether you have sufficient time to complete the review within the required deadline.
Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct
Once a reviewer accepts an invitation, the manuscript and all associated review materials must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with any third party without prior permission from the Editor. Reviews should be based on a complete reading of the manuscript and should provide fair, objective, and constructive feedback.
Preparing Your Review Report
The review report assists the Editor in determining the suitability of a manuscript for publication. Comments should be professional, respectful, and constructive. Criticism should focus on improving the manuscript and should always be supported by clear explanations and scientific reasoning.
Reviewer Checklist
1. Manuscript Summary
Provide a concise summary of the manuscript to demonstrate understanding of the study and its objectives.
2. Originality and Contribution
Evaluate the novelty, significance, and potential contribution of the work to knowledge and practice.
3. Citation Recommendations
Recommend additional references only when scientifically justified and relevant to the manuscript.
4. Publication Ethics
Inform the Editor immediately if plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or ethical concerns are suspected.
5. Detailed Evaluation
Provide specific comments regarding the title, abstract, introduction, methodology, statistical analysis, results, discussion, conclusion, language quality, formatting, and references. Constructive suggestions are encouraged to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Editorial Decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor based on reviewers’ reports and recommendations. The Editor carefully considers all review comments and may seek additional evaluations when necessary to ensure a balanced and fair assessment.
Accept
The manuscript is suitable for publication.
Revision Required
Authors must revise the manuscript before further consideration.
Reject
The manuscript is not suitable for publication.
Reviewer Recognition
Web of Science Researcher Profiles
JURIBMAS encourages reviewers to receive formal recognition for their valuable contributions through Web of Science Researcher Profiles. After completing a review, reviewers may choose to submit their review activity for recognition. Once confirmed, review information can be transferred automatically and added to the reviewer’s profile, helping document their scholarly service and peer-review contributions while maintaining manuscript confidentiality.
Commitment to Excellence in Peer Review
JURIBMAS is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, objectivity, and publication ethics through a rigorous and professional peer-review process.
JURIBMAS is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, objectivity, and publication ethics through a rigorous and professional peer-review process.
