Reviewers Guidelines

Before reviewing, please note the following:

  1. As a reviewer, you need to confirm your availability in reviewing the article based on the requested deadline.
  2. After confirming your availability, please read the JSH Author Guideline as the main reference in reviewing the article.
  3. Reviewer is mandatory to fill in the review form and consent form provided by JSH. Furthermore, reviewers also need to review the author's manuscript using Microsoft Word (add comments feature with anonymous name).
  4. After completing the forms, please upload them to the journal system by signing in to your account. After uploading the documents, reviewers are asked to provide recommendation regarding the review process result based on the scoring guideline that has been explained in review form :
    1. 20-25 without point 3 : Can be published without revision (accept submission)
    2. 20-25 with point 3 : Can be published with minor revision (revisions required)
    3. 11-19 : Can be published with major revision (resubmit for review)
    4. 0-10 : Can’t be published (resubmit elsewhere / decline submission)
  5. Please notify the section editor when the review process has completed through the Open Journal System.

Furthermore, there are following points that reviewers should pay attention to when reviewing a manuscript :

  1. Please make sure that the article that has been assigned for the review process is part of your expertise.
  2.  Please make sure that the review process will be conducted within the time that has been given by the journal.
  3. Please make sure that all the review process is objective based on the content of the manuscript and please attach some objective and clear comments regarding the review.

General :

  1. Author guideline: is the manuscript in accordance with the author guidelines?
  2.  Title: Does the title describe the manuscript?
  3. Abstract: Does the abstract clear and concise enough to describe all the content in the manuscript?
  4. Introduction: Does the introduction provide an adequate and concise background related to the topic in the discussion?

Method :

  1. Does the method which is explained in the methodology part can be seen being used at the analysis?

Content & Analysis :

  1. Does the analysis explain and relate to the objective that is being explained in the background?
  2. Does the manuscript contain novelty and interesting points for knowledge development?
  3. Does the theory explain the discussion in the analysis?
  4. Is this section written clearly?

Conclusion :

  1. Does the conclusion have a silver lining with the background and analysis?
  2. Does the conclusion contain recommendation and summary of the research?
  3. Does the conclusion answer the objectives of the research?

Figures, Tables, Diagrams :

  1. Do the figures, tables and diagrams made in concise data and allocation of the title according to the author guidelines?
  2. Do the figures, tables and diagrams really be used in the analysis?

References :

  1. Is the reference written in APAstyle citation style?