Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process:

1. Introduction

As a reviewer for the Journal of Mandalika Review, you play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the publication. Your feedback and recommendations are essential for authors to improve their work and for the journal to uphold its standards. Peer reviewers should discuss the article's strengths and weaknesses, suggest ways to enhance its quality, and assess the manuscript's relevance and authenticity.

2. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

2.1. Before Reviewing

Expertise Match: Ensure the manuscript is within your area of expertise. If it is not, notify the editor immediately and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.
Availability: Confirm you can complete the review within the two-week period. If you need more time, inform the editor as soon as possible or suggest an alternative reviewer.
Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor. While conflicts of interest do not automatically disqualify you, transparency is crucial. Contact the editorial office if you have any questions about potential conflicts.

2.2. During Reviewing

Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript.
Do not share the manuscript with others or use its content for personal advantage.
Provide constructive advice and honest feedback, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and suggesting ways to improve its quality and relevance.

3. Evaluation Criteria

3.1. Title and Abstract

Title: Assess if the title clearly illustrates the article’s content.
Abstract: Ensure the abstract reflects the article’s contents accurately, including objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.

3.2. Introduction

Verify the introduction accurately presents the context and significance of the research, clearly states the problem being addressed, and summarizes relevant literature, hypotheses, and methods.

3.3. Content of the Article

Originality and Suitability: Check for originality and suitability for the journal. Ensure there are no elements of plagiarism over 25% using tools like Turnitin.
- If the study has been previously conducted by others, evaluate if it still contributes new knowledge.
- Ensure the article is new, deep, and interesting enough to be published and adheres to the journal's standards.
Scope: Confirm the article aligns with the journal’s objectives and scope.

3.4. Methodology

Assess if the author accurately describes data collection methods, theoretical bases, and reference appropriateness.
Verify if the design is suitable for answering the research question and if there is enough detail to replicate the study.
Check for the identification of procedures, explanation of new methods, appropriate sampling, and clear descriptions of tools and materials used.

3.5. Results

Ensure the results are clearly presented and logically structured.
Check if appropriate analyses and statistical tools are used.
Suggest better statistical tools if applicable.

3.6. Discussion and Conclusion

Evaluate if the claims are supported by fair results and are reasonable.
Ensure the author compares research results with previous studies.
Check if the conclusions explain how future research could be improved.

3.7. Tables and Figures

Verify that tables and figures are suitable, clear, and easy to interpret, supporting the text effectively.

3.8. Writing Style

Ensure the manuscript is written in clear, coherent English with good grammar.
Check for systematic and critical literature reviews relevant to the field of study.
Ensure the manuscript is easy to understand and interesting to read.

4. Reviewer’s Report

4.1. Structure of the Report

Summary: Provide a summary of the manuscript, including the main findings and your overall impression.
Major Comments: Highlight significant issues that must be addressed.
Minor Comments: Point out minor issues such as grammatical errors, formatting inconsistencies, or minor clarifications needed.

4.2. Recommendation

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be published.
Major Revision: The manuscript needs substantial changes but has potential for publication.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form and lacks potential for improvement.

5. Ethical Considerations

Be objective and constructive in your review.
Avoid personal criticism of the author(s).
Report any ethical concerns such as plagiarism or data fabrication to the editor.

6. Timeliness

Complete your review within the agreed time frame.
If you require an extension, inform the editor as soon as possible.

7. Final Review and Confidentiality

Submit the review by the due date to the editorial office.
Do not contact the author directly.
All results of the review are confidential. If you wish to discuss the article with a colleague, inform the editor first.

8. Contact Information

For any questions or concerns regarding the review process, do not hesitate to contact our editorial office at pppm@ppl.ac.id