Reviewer Guidelines

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the Author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the paper's strength and quality, and evaluate the manuscript's relevance and authenticity. The peer-reviewing process assists the Editor and the Editorial board in making editorial decisions.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

Is the article requested to be reviewed following your expertise? If you receive a script that covers topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the Editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.

Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the Editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.

Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the Editor.


The Review Form is adopted from the Editorial Guidelines for Scientific Journal Management published by the Directorate of Intellectual Property Management - Kemenristekbrin 2020.


  1. The title reflects the essence of the content of the paper (output/method/aspect of novelty), is specific, effective (straightforward and informative), does not bring up the object of research, and there are no uncommon abbreviations.
  2. Suggestions/improvements to be made by the Author on the Title.


  1. Abstract contains a complete summary that includes the problem, objectives, methods, research results / important findings, and conclusions. Abbreviations are explained and there are no references to literature, pronouns, formulas, figures, and tables.
  2. Suggestions/improvements that must be made by the Author in the Abstract.


Keywords consist of at least 5 words/phrases that are consistent and reflect important concepts in the article.


  1. The introduction contains the background of the problem, gap analysis, state of the art, new contributions, research objectives presented clearly and specifically, and references to articles published in at least the last 5 years.
  2. Suggestions/improvements that must be made by the Author in the Introduction.


  1. The research method used is appropriate and in accordance with the research objectives and operational.
  2. Suggestions/improvements that must be made by the Author on Research Methods.

Results and Discussion:

  1. Results and Discussion describe or answer the research problem and objectives. The Results contain evidence of findings and effective illustrations and the Discussion contains the meaning of the findings.
  2. Presentation of tables and figures is informative, complementary, and interesting.
  3. Grammar.
  4. Suggestions/improvements to be made by the Author on Results and Discussion.


  1. Drawing conclusions has compiled new findings supported by sufficient research data that are accurately stated.
  2. Suggestions/improvements that must be made by the Author in Conclusion.


  1. Completeness of references, their quality and quantity (number of primary literature published in the last 5 years).
  2. Originality of the article.
  3. Potential for development.
  4. Contribution to science and technology.

Recommendations :

  • the manuscript is accepted unconditionally;
  • the manuscript is accepted with minor revisions without having to be reviewed again;
  • the manuscript is accepted with many revisions and must be reviewed again;
  • the manuscript is rejected or delegated to another reviewer; or the manuscript is rejected.