Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the academic quality and integrity of Peradaban: Journal of Public Service. The review process follows a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback based on the following criteria:

1. General Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following aspects:

• Relevance and Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal’s focus on community service and applied research?
• Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript provide new insights, ideas, or findings that contribute to community development and research?
• Scientific Rigor: Are the research methods, theoretical framework, and analysis appropriate and sound?
• Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and coherent? Does it follow proper academic writing standards?
• Ethical Considerations: Are there any ethical concerns regarding the research process, data collection, or conflicts of interest?

2. Detailed Review Criteria

a. Title and Abstract

• Does the title clearly reflect the content of the paper?
• Is the abstract concise, well-structured, and informative?
• Does the abstract summarize the research objectives, methods, key findings, and implications?

b. Introduction

• Does the introduction clearly state the research problem and objectives?
• Is there a strong justification for the study, supported by relevant literature?
• Does the introduction establish the significance of the research within the context of community service and applied research?

c. Literature Review

• Is the literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?
• Does it critically engage with existing research and highlight gaps in the literature?
• Is the theoretical framework well-defined and relevant to the study?

d. Methodology

• Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research question?
• Are the data collection methods and sampling techniques well-explained?
• Are the analytical methods valid and suitable for the study?
• Is there sufficient detail to allow replication of the study?

e. Results and Discussion

• Are the results clearly presented and logically structured?
• Does the discussion interpret the findings in relation to existing research?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data and analysis?
• Are the implications for community service and practical applications discussed?

f. References and Citations

• Are the references relevant, up-to-date, and properly cited?
• Does the manuscript follow the journal’s referencing style?
• Are there any missing citations for key sources?

3. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision – The manuscript meets all criteria and is ready for publication.
• Accept with minor revisions – The manuscript requires minor improvements but is fundamentally strong.
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions required) – Significant revisions are needed before reconsideration.
• Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

4. Providing Constructive Feedback

• Feedback should be specific, objective, and constructive to help authors improve their work.
• Highlight both strengths and areas for improvement with clear suggestions.
• Avoid overly critical or vague comments; instead, provide evidence-based recommendations.

5. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Maintain confidentiality and do not share or discuss the manuscript with others.
• Declare any conflicts of interest and decline the review if there is a potential bias.
• Provide timely responses and adhere to the review deadline.
• Ensure that all assessments are fair and based on academic merit without discrimination.