Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are responsible for criticizing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in their field of expertise, then providing constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the author of the submitted article. Reviewers, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to improve the strengths and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  • Does the article you are asked to review match your expertise? If you receive a script that covers a topic that is not within your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend alternative reviewers.
  • Do you have time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and need more time, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Is there a 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 questions about potential conflicts of interest, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.


Review Process

When reviewing articles, consider the following:

  1. Title Rules: does the title reflect the results of the dedication unlike the title of the thesis, does not use the words influence, analysis, evaluation
  2. Abstract Rules: whether the preparation of the abstract complies with the maximum 250 words requirement, contains the urgency of the research community service, the objectives of the community service, the method of service and the results of the community service.
  3. Introduction: does the author use new references to strengthen the background, are there problems/phenomena that are up to date, the purpose of community service research is stated explicitly. The references used are in accordance with the theme of community service
  4. Method Rules. Provide research approaches, strategies and service steps in concise and clear language.
  5. Rules for results and discussion: whether the results of the service are in accordance with the methodology used. Does it convey the steps in community service activities? Do you convey the results of service activities?
  6. Closing Rule: Does the content of the conclusion of the results of service related to the object of service not only contain theoretical conclusions and not a repetition of the results and discussion?
  7. Bibliography Rules: Whether the bibliography has used Mendeley/Zotero / reference manager application. Are the references used from the last 5 years, the minimum number of bibliography is 15?
  8. Grammar and writing rules: format according to template, standard writing and grammar, use plagiarism check software.
  9. Other Rules: reviewers must provide comments and errors that need to be corrected along with suggestions for improvement.