REVIEWER'S GUIDE

This guide outlines the peer review process for the Journal of Indonesian Society Empowerment (JISE). As a peer reviewer, you play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of published research. Please read this guide carefully before beginning your review.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Before accepting a review invitation, confirm the following:

The manuscript topic aligns with your expertise. If not, notify the editor and recommend an alternative reviewer.
You have availability to complete the review within 21 days of receiving the manuscript.
You have no conflicts of interest that would compromise your objectivity.
You understand your obligation to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

Review Process

Please follow these steps when reviewing a manuscript:

1. Initial Assessment

Read the manuscript twice. On the first read, note your general impressions. On the second read, evaluate it critically against the criteria below.

2. Scope and Fit

Determine whether the manuscript aligns with JISE's scope. Consider:

Does the work address community empowerment, sustainable development, or social policy?
Does it fit within one of JISE's thematic areas or contribute to the SDGs?
Does it have practical relevance to the Global South or Indonesian context?

3. Evaluate Manuscript Components

Component	Evaluation Focus
Title & Abstract	Is the title informative? Does the abstract clearly summarize background, methods, results, implications? Are abstracts in both English and Indonesian?
Introduction	Is the research problem clearly stated? Is literature review adequate, recent, well-integrated? Are objectives explicit?
Methods	Is methodology appropriate and clearly described? Is research design justified? Are data collection procedures explained? Ethical considerations addressed?
Results	Are findings clearly presented and logically organized? Do results answer research questions? Are tables and figures clear?
Discussion	Do findings connect to objectives? Compared with literature? Limitations acknowledged? Implications for practice stated?
References	References recent (last 10 years)? Citation style (APA 7th) consistent? All citations complete and correct?

4. Assess Originality and Quality

Is the work original and does it contribute new knowledge?
Are claims supported by evidence? Is methodology sound?
Is writing clear and well-organized?
For similar work, explain why this manuscript merits publication.

5. Provide Detailed Feedback

Provide your review by adding comments directly to the manuscript using Word's track changes feature. Be constructive and specific. Do not contact the author directly.

Review Decisions

After evaluating the manuscript, provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept – Manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor revisions. Work is original, methodologically sound, and makes a clear contribution.

Minor Revisions – Manuscript is acceptable but requires minor revisions. Clarifications needed, minor adjustments, additional references. Revisions should not fundamentally change findings.

Major Revisions – Manuscript has merit but requires substantial revisions. Major methodological concerns, incomplete analysis, unclear presentation. May require second review.

Reject – Manuscript not suitable for JISE. Fundamental flaws: severe methodological issues, lack of originality, out of scope, ethical concerns, plagiarism exceeding 20%, or insufficient contribution.

Timeline

To ensure timely publication, please adhere to the following timeline:

Reviewer Response: Confirm or decline review invitation within 2 days of receiving it.

Manuscript Review: Complete review and submit feedback within 21 days of receiving the manuscript.

First Editorial Decision: Editor will notify author of decision within 21 days after all reviews are received.

Author Revisions: Author has 21 days to revise manuscript and submit response letter addressing all reviewer comments.

Re-review (if needed): Original reviewer will assess revised version within 14 days.

If you cannot meet the 21-day deadline, notify the editor immediately. Extensions up to 7 days may be granted with prior notification.

Conflict of Interest Declaration

A conflict of interest exists when personal, financial, professional, or institutional relationships could influence your ability to provide an objective review. Conflicts of interest do not automatically disqualify you from reviewing, but they must be disclosed.

Types of Conflicts to Disclose:

Professional relationships: co-author, close collaborator, or recent colleague of the author(s).
Financial interests: financial interest in research or outcomes (funding, patents, employment).
Personal relationships: family or close personal ties to author(s).
Competitive research: competing research that could be affected by publication.
Institutional affiliation: work at same institution as author(s) or supervisory relationships.
Academic conflicts: research directly supports or contradicts your published work.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Be constructive: Provide feedback that helps authors improve work. Avoid harsh language.
Be specific: Reference specific sections and provide concrete suggestions.
Maintain confidentiality: Do not discuss manuscript with colleagues or contact author directly.
Be objective: Base assessment on quality, methodology, and contribution. Avoid bias.
Be fair: Give credit for author's efforts, even if recommending rejection.
Consider the SDGs: Evaluate how research contributes to UN Sustainable Development Goals.