Review Guidelines

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Reviewers play an essential role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and academic contribution of manuscripts submitted to the Jurnal Pengabdian Siliwangi. The review process follows a double-blind system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

The main purpose of the review is to provide constructive feedback to the authors and to assist the editors in making publication decisions. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and within the agreed time frame.

B. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Confidentiality
    All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content for personal or professional advantage prior to publication.

  2. Conflict of Interest
    Reviewers should immediately inform the editor if they identify any potential conflict of interest, whether financial, professional, or personal, that could affect their objectivity in assessing the manuscript.

  3. Objectivity
    Reviews should be conducted impartially and based solely on the academic merit of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable.

  4. Acknowledgment of Sources
    Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript and other published papers should be reported to the editor.

C. REVIEW CRITERIA

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. Title and Abstract

    • The title reflects the content and main variables of the research clearly and concisely.

    • The abstract summarizes the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions effectively.

  2. Introduction

    • Provides sufficient background and relevant literature review.

    • Clearly states the research gap, objectives, novelty, and theoretical foundation.

  3. Methodology

    • The research design, data sources, sampling techniques, and analysis methods are clearly described.

    • The methodology is appropriate and scientifically rigorous.

    • Ethical aspects of the research are properly addressed.

  4. Results and Discussion

    • Results are presented systematically and supported by adequate evidence.

    • Discussion interprets findings critically, links them to previous research, and explains theoretical and practical implications.

  5. Conclusion

    • The conclusion is consistent with the research objectives and findings.

    • It highlights contributions, limitations, and suggestions for further research.

  6. References

    • References are up-to-date, relevant, and follow APA Style as required by the journal.

    • The majority of references come from reputable journal articles.

  7. Overall Quality

    • The manuscript demonstrates originality, clarity, methodological soundness, and contribution to scientific knowledge or practical application.

D. REVIEW FORMAT AND RECOMMENDATION

Reviewers are encouraged to provide comments in a clear and structured manner, covering both major and minor aspects of the manuscript.
Each review should include:

  1. General Comments

    • Overall impression of the manuscript.

    • Strengths and weaknesses.

    • Contribution to theory, practice, or policy.

  2. Specific Comments

    • Detailed feedback on particular sections (e.g., introduction, method, discussion).

    • Suggestions for improvement.

  3. Recommendation to the Editor
    Reviewers should indicate one of the following recommendations:

    • Accept without revision

    • Accept with minor revisions

    • Reconsider after major revisions

    • Reject

All recommendations must be supported by clear and rational justification.

E. REVIEW PROCESS AND TIMELINE

  • Reviewers will be given 14–21 days to complete their review.

  • If additional time is needed, reviewers should promptly notify the editorial office.

  • Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess a particular manuscript should immediately decline the invitation and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer with relevant expertise.

F. REVIEWER FEEDBACK STYLE

Constructive and professional tone is essential. Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • Focus on improving the manuscript rather than criticizing the author personally.

  • Provide actionable suggestions for clarity, logic, and methodological rigor.

  • Highlight both strengths and areas for improvement.

G. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA PROTECTION

All review reports, editorial decisions, and author identities are confidential and handled exclusively within the Jurnal Pengabdian Siliwangi editorial system. Reviewers must not retain copies of the manuscript after completing the review process.

H. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The editorial team sincerely appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers. Their expertise, time, and critical feedback are essential for maintaining the scientific quality and credibility of the Jurnal Pengabdian Siliwangi.