The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making a decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan MIPA (JRPM) operates a blind peer review system.
Before accepting to review a manuscript reviewers should ensure that:
- the manuscript is within their area of expertise.
- they can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”.
”Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”.
The submitted manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of constructive evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.
‘The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own’ Oxford Dictionaries
It is unethical for reviewers to “use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others” COPE
Reviews should be honest and objective. Reviewers should not be influenced by:
- The origin of the manuscript;
- The religious, political, or cultural viewpoint of the author/s; and
- Gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenship of the author/s.
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are expected to present a report that contains:
- A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions.
- Broad comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for authors to be able to respond.
- Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables, or figures. Reviewers need not comment on formatting issues that do not obscure the meaning of the paper, as these will be addressed by editors.
Reviewers should also:
- Observe that the author(s) have followed the instructions for authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics; and
- Observe that the appropriate journal’s reporting guidelines are followed.
The report should be accurate, objective, constructive, and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regard to the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should avoid using “hostile, derogatory, and accusatory comments”.
Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.
Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time to reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner. Please contact the editorial office if you require an extension to the review deadline.
Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:
- Requires minor corrections
- Requires moderate revision
- Requires major revision
- Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal):
The recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.