SOP of Manuscript Management
- At least two reviewers independently review every manuscript submitted to Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi & Bisnis in the form of "double-blind peer review." The decision for accepted, accepted with revisions, or rejected is based upon their reports/recommendation. In some instances, the editor may submit an article for review to another, the third reviewer before making a decision, if necessary.
Role and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
The peer reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.
- Ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.
- Uphold the journal's integrity by identifying invalid research and helping to maintain the journal's quality.
- Fulfil a sense of obligation to the community and their area of research.
- Establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
- It can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other problems by dinting their familiarity with the subject area.
- Reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as a reviewer, researchers "repay" the same consideration they receive as authors.
When reviewing the article, please consider the following:
- Is it a summary?
- Does it include key findings?
- Is it an appropriate length?
- Is it effective, clear and well organized?
- Does it introduce and put into perspective what follows?
- Suggest changes in organization and point authors to appropriate citations.
- Be specific - do not write “the authors have done a poor job.”
- Can a colleague reproduce the experiments and get the same outcomes?
- Did the authors include proper references to previously published methodology?
- Is the description of the new methodology accurate?
- Could or should the authors have included supplementary material?
Results and Discussion
- Suggest improvements in the way data is shown
- Comment on general logic and justification of interpretations and conclusions
- Comment on the number of figures, tables and schemes Write concisely and precisely which changes you recommend List separately suggested changes in style, grammar and other small changes
- Suggest additional experiments or analyses
- Make clear the need for changes/updates
- Ask yourself whether the manuscript should be published at all
- Comment on importance, validity and generality of conclusions
- Request toning down of unjustified claims and generalizations
- Request removal of redundancies and summaries
- The abstract, not the conclusion, summarizes the study
References, Tables and Figures
- Check accuracy, number and citation appropriateness
- Comment on any footnotes Comment on figures, their quality and readability
- Assess completeness of legends, headers and axis labels
- Check presentation consistency Comment on the need for colour in figures
When submitting your recommendation, you can choose from the following options:
- Sound with minor or moderate revisions
- Unsound or fundamentally flawed