Guidelines of Reviewers

The quality of a manuscript submitted to JINCES depends on the quality of the review work done. To ensure quality and rigour, the role of a reviewer is key. Without the role of a reviewer, the quality and timeliness of a manuscript will not be achieved. A reviewer provides a double-blinded peer-review process of a manuscript to ensure quality publication, which helps the editorial decision-making process. Then, we expect our reviewers to provide timely review reports, being fair and unbiased. The following guidelines are expected from our reviewers in their review process:

  1. A reviewer provides recommendations on any manuscript received within 14 from the day acknowledgment of the manuscript was received. Otherwise, contact the Editor-in-Chief immediately if the deadline will not be met.
  2. All communication between the editorial board and the reviewer is confidential. No information will be given to anyone, including the author/s without permission from the Editor or editorial board.
  3. Your recommendations and comments should be courteous, encouraging, and development-oriented devoid of bias. Also, identify the strength of the manuscript and areas necessary for improvement.
  4. A reviewer should analyze or evaluate any manuscript based on the following criteria:
    1. Relevance, scope, and importance of the study to JINCES
    2. Importance of title or topic
    3. The originality of the paper (article) and logical flow.
    4. Literature review quality and citation
    5. Quality and use of suitable framework/model/theory (if applicable)
    6. Quality and use of suitable research design and methodology
    7. Quality of analysis and discussion (evidence)
    8. Quality of organization and presentation
    9. Contribution to the body knowledge, theory, and practice
    10. The overall quality of the paper (article) and layout.
  5. All recommendations and comments are sent to the respective authors, and reviewers are encouraged to be fair, consistent, and correct in their evaluations and comments (report). Use everyday language so that authors can easily understand the comments and suggestions. Avoid criticizing an author on their manuscript.

JINCES Peer Review Template

Manuscript ID

 

Manuscript Title

 

Date Received

 

Returned Date

 

Reviewers name

 

 

Please return the manuscript review report within 14 days upon receipt. All your comments and recommendations should be made in the review report. If you are not available to review the manuscript, kindly notify the editors as soon as possible.

Would you please highlight your appropriate selection

 

Evaluation Criteria

Low

Medium

High

1

Relevance, scope and important of the study for JINCES

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

Importance for title or topic

1

2

3

4

5

6

3

Originality of the paper (article) and logical flow

1

2

3

4

5

6

4

Literature review quality and citation

1

2

3

4

5

6

5

Quality and use of suitable framework/model/theory (if applicable)

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

Quality and use of suitable research design and methodology

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Quality of analysis and discussion (evidence)

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

Quality of organisation and presentation

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

Contribution to the body knowledge, theory, and practice

1

2

3

4

5

6

10

Overall quality of the paper (article) and layout

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

Reviewer Recommendation (Make X on your selection)

Publish without revisions         [  ]

Publish with Minor Revisions       [  ]

Publish with Major Revisions        [  ]

Reject                 [  ]

Reviewer’s Constructive Comments to the author(s)

JINCES believes in consistency and quality. JINCES peer-review process ensures that improvements are made to all submitted papers (articles). Ensuring quality and helping authors improve their papers. The following questions are aimed to strengthen the reviewer’s suggestions and recommendations:

 

  1. What do you think are the strengths of the manuscript?

 

 

  1. What do you think are the weakness of the manuscript?

 

 

 

  1. What are the key contributions of the manuscript?

 

 

 

 

  1. How can the manuscript be improved? Suggest common recommendations and revision to advance the scholarliness of the manuscript (where necessary)

 

 

 

Confidential comments and suggestions to Editors

 

 

 

Thank You for your assistance.