Reviewer Guidelines for the Wasathiyah: Jurnal Studi Moderasi Beragama Indonesia
We hope that the guidelines described below will help facilitate peer review as a conversation between authors and reviewers, and as an essential element of the publication process. Please download the REVIEWER AGREEMENT FORM as a form of your willingness to become a Peer Reviewer in the Wasathiyah journal.
Responsibility of Peer Reviewer
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.
Before reviewing, please note the following:
Is the article requested to be reviewed in accordance with your expertise? If you receive a script that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of your expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.
Do you have the time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within two weeks. If you agree and require a longer period, notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.
Is there any potential conflict of interest? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.
When reviewing the article, please consider the following:
- Title: is it clearly illustrating the article?
- Abstract: does it reflect the contents of the article?
- Introduction: does it describe the accuracy of matters submitted by the author and clearly state the problem being considered? Typically, the introduction should summarize the context of the relevant research, and explain the findings of the research or other findings, if any, offered for discussion. This research should explain the experiments, hypotheses and methods.
Content of the Article
In order to determine the originality and suitability for the journal, are there any elements of plagiarism over 25% of this paper field? Quick literature search can use certain tools such as Scopus to see if there are similarities from other parts.
- if the study had been previously done by other authors, it is still eligible for publication?
- is the article is fairly new, fairly deep, and interesting to be published?
- does it contribute to knowledge?
- does the article adhere to the standards of the journal?
- Scope - Is the article in line with the objectives and scope of the journal?
Comprehensive and perfect:
- does the author accurately describe how the data is collected?
- is the theoretical basis or reference used appropriate for this study?
- is the exposure design suitable for the answer to the question?
- is there a decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
- does the article identify following procedures?
- are there any new methods? If there is a new method, does the author explain it in details?
- is there any appropriate sampling?
- have the tools and materials used been adequately explained? and
- does the article exposure describe what type of data is recorded; right in describing the measurement?
This is where the author must explain the findings in his/her research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider whether the appropriate analysis has been carried out; the use of statistical tools? If you have a better statistical tools to be used in this study, notify it, and the interpretation need not to be included in this section.
Discussion and Conclusion:
- are the claims in this section is supported by the fair results and quite reasonable?
- does the author compare the research results with other previous ones?
- do the results of research written in the article contradict the previous theories?
- does the conclusion explain how a better scientific research to be followed-up?
Tables and Pictures:
Is it suitable with the referred explanation by showing data which is easy to to interprete and understanable for the readers?
- Authors must be critical mostly to the literature systematic review of the issues, which is relevant to the field of study.
- Reviews should be focused on a single topic.
- All exposure should be in English and written in a god and coherent grammar.
- Easy to understand
- Interesting to read
Things that need to be considered:
Perspective, a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues in marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship.
The original data and testing, it must present data that offers a new approach to improve systems, processes, and precision of the tools which are used.
Research policy and observational analysis, it should clarify the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation on the research results. It is not limited to the topic of marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship.
In Practice (case study), The paper should explain the situation regarding the future challenges in marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and suistainable, and entrepreneurship, within its conclusions, and things which can be learned.
- References are from the last 10 years
- Accuracy in using APA Style 7th Edition style
- Using Reference Management Application (Mendeley, EndNote, Zetero, etc).
- Sources from Reputable International and National Journals
- All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential
- If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor
- Do not contact the author directly.
- Ethical issues:
- All review results submitted by reviewers are confidential
- If you would like to discuss the article with colleagues, please inform the editor
- Do not contact the author directly.
- Ethical issues: (1) Plagiarism: if you suspect the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please tell the editor in detail; (2) Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the category of fraud, but if you suspect the results in the article are incorrect, please notify the editor
After reviewing the article, please provide recommendations for authors and editors:
Accept Submissions (with or without minor revisions): This article is well researched and written and on topics important to the field and journal, without significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require a little extra on its theoretical or scientific background, or it may need to be edited, but it does not require significant additional research or restructuring.
Revision required: The article is an important topic for the field and journal but requires some additional research or rewriting before it is worthy of publication. The review identifies some gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo some reorganization or writing. However, reviewers are confident that the revision can be successfully completed under the supervision of the journal editor.
Resubmit for Review: The article addresses topics that are important to the field and journal, but require significant additional research or rewriting before they are suitable for publication. The review identifies some substantial gaps in analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers feel that these necessary revisions are significant enough that the article should be resubmitted for additional rounds of review.
Reject: The article addresses topics with limited relevance to fields and journals, and/or requires significant additional research or rewriting before they are eligible for publication. In the latter case, the review identifies several significant gaps in the analysis, theoretical or scientific background, and/or methodology: and/or identifies the need for the article to undergo significant reorganization or rewrite. Reviewers have little confidence that such revisions can be successfully completed within a reasonable time frame.
Complete the "Review" before the due date to the editorial office. Your recommendations for the article will be considered when the editor makes the final decision and your honest feedback is highly appreciated.
When you write a comment, please show you a section of the comment that is only intended for the editor and a part that can be returned to the author. Feel free to contact the editorial office if there are any questions or problems you may encounter.