Contoh Reviewer Guidelines

[andri.putra.kesmawan]

Berikut contoh Panduan bagi Reviewer

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is good reason.
2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequate or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or were results so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

[pramudya]

Berikut contoh Panduan bagi Reviewer

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is good reason.
2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequate or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or were results so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

JKAP sudah pake form review kah Mas?

[andri.putra.kesmawan]

Berikut contoh Panduan bagi Reviewer

Review Process of Manuscript: Initial Review

1. Read the abstract to be sure that you have the expertise to review the article. Don’t be afraid to say no to reviewing an article if there is good reason.
2. Read information provided by the journal for reviewers so you will know: a) The type of manuscript (e.g., a review article, technical note, original research) and the journal’s expectations/parameters for that type of manuscript.; b) Other journal requirements that the manuscript must meet (e.g., length, citation style).
3. Know the journal’s scope and mission to make sure that the topic of the paper fits in the scope.
4. Ready? Read through entire manuscript initially to see if the paper is worth publishing- only make a few notes about major problems if such exist: a) Is the question of interest sound and significant?; b) Was the design and/or method used adequate or fatally flawed? (for original research papers); c) Were the results substantial enough to consider publishable (or were only two or so variables presented or were results so flawed as to render the paper unpublishable)?
5. What is your initial impression? If the paper is: a) Acceptable with only minor comments/questions: solid, interesting, and new; sound methodology used; results were well presented; discussion well formulated with Interpretations based on sound science reasoning, etc., with only minor comments/questions, move directly to writing up review; b) Fatally flawed so you will have to reject it: move directly to writing up review; c) A mixture somewhere in the range of “revise and resubmit” to “accepted with major changes” or you’re unsure if it should be rejected yet or not: It may be a worthy paper, but there are major concerns that would need to be addressed.

JKAP sudah pake form review kah Mas?

Sudah kang.

[resika]

mantap. makasi pak

[ozan]

Terimakasih Pak...bermanfaat

[acahya]

saya pun nyontek JKAP