Reviewer Guideline

All manuscripts submitted to Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik will undergo a rigorous peer-review to ensure they fit into our scope, sufficient academic quality and novelty journal’s reader. Reviewers are required to uphold this standard.

Reviewer guideline will help reviewers understand their responsibility and ethical obligaition to both the journal and the authors. The guideline will introduce what reviewers should look for in a manuscript, so that the result of the review will be consistent with the other reviewers.

Reviewers’ responsibility
All manuscripts submitted to Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik will undergo a rigorous peer-review to ensure they fit into our scope, sufficient academic quality and novelty journal’s reader. Reviewers are required to uphold this standard.

Agreeing to review manuscript
Before reviewers agree to review a manuscript, they should be certain that they have the necessary expertise and time to provide an evaluation of the manuscript. Here are several points to be considered:

  1. The manuscript matches reviewers’ expertise. Log into reviewers’ account and read the abstract to determine whether reviewer field of expertise matches that of the manuscripts.

  2. Reviewers are able to complete the review on time and dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a rigorous review. A review should be completed within two weeks. If reviewers are unable to complete the review within this timeframe, please let the editor know. Another is that if reviewer at first agree to review a manuscript but then unable to complete it, please contact the editor as soon as possible.

  3. Reviewer should have no conflict of interest. Determine whether there is a conflict of interest that may affect reviewer’s impartiality in evaluating a manuscript. If reviewers are able to review a manuscript, but during the review process detect any conflict of interest, reviewers should soon contact editor.

Reviewer ethics
Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik relies on the impartiality and discretion of reviewers, and therefore reviewer are entrusted with confidential manuscript meant solely for critical evaluation. We expect that reviewer treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with the appropriate level of care. Here are some reviewer ethics

  1. Do not use any of the information therein for the advancement of reviewers’ research or to discredit another party

  2. Do not discuss any aspect of the manuscript with a third party

  3. Ensure that the information therein and details of the review process remain confidential before, during and after publication.

  4. Maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process. Do not under any circumstances contact any of the authors to discuss their manuscript.

  5. Be fair, honest and objective in your evaluation of the manuscript

  6. Declare a conflict of interest, recuse immediately if reviewers; impartiality have been compromised.

Conducting review
Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik uses an online submission and peer review system. When a reviewer is requested to review a paper submitted to Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik, they will have a journal account created for them, through which they will be able to read the abstract and decide if they are agree. Reviewers can also decline to review the manuscript.

To ensure the integrity of the per-review process, all correspondence will undergo through this system, with the reviewer being given access to the full manuscript and provided them with a review page to fill out and submit.

Basic criteria
A good review looks at both the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details. Here are several criteria for reviewing a manuscript:

  1. Scope: Is the manuscript within Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik scope? How interesting will the article be to the journal’s readership?

  2. Novelty of the research. Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting? Does it add new knowledge? How original is the research?

  3. Appropriateness of the title. Does the title accurately represent the content?

  4. Content quality. Does the article adhere to Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik standards?

  5. Introduction. Does this describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly articulate the research question? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Are there ay important works that have been omitted?

  6. Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? does the manuscript explain what type of data was recorded? Has the author been precisely describing the measurement used?

  7. Result and Discussion: this is where the author should clearly explain what was discovered in the research. Are results presented clearly? For the discussion: Are the claims in this section reasonable and supported by the results. Are the findings consistent with the previous research?

  8. Conclusion: Does the conclusion adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

  9. Graphics and tables: do the figure and tables inform the reader? Are they an important part of the story: are the presented consistently?

Ethical considerations
In addition to the above criteria, reviewer should pay attention to whether the manuscript contains instances of plagiarism, improper referencing re-publication or fraud. Here are the details:

  1. Plagiarism: observe whether a portion of the manuscript has been copied from another work without giving appropriate credit.

  2. Improper referencing: all texts, figures, tables, data , ideas, or concept that have been previously published should be cited.

  3. Re-publication it is against our policy to publish work that has already been published elsewhere.

  4. Fraud: any part of the manuscript has is found to be untrue should be highlighted as such. Any form of data manipulation or tampering should be brought to the editor.

Pesirah: Jurnal Administrasi Publik review form
Once reviewers have gathered enough information to make a decision on the manuscript, log into reviewer’s account to complete the review. Reviewer will be required to grade the manuscript based on the aforementioned criteria, as well as to summarize the major findings and give your overall impression of the manuscript. Reviewer is also obliged to provide suggestions that might improve any aspect of it. Reviewers are also able to make comments in the manuscripts but reviewers should anonymize them to prevent authors form being able to identify you.

The final task of reviewers is to recommend that manuscript be (a) accepted as it is; (b) accepted with minor revisions; (c) accepted with major revisions; rejected. Each recommendation should be supported by the sufficient facts of the evaluation. The final decision on the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account the recommendation of each reviewer.