Review guidelines

Reviewers play a role in maintaining the scientific quality of articles through an objective, independent, and constructive peer-review process. The journal implements a Double-Blind Peer Review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept secret during the review process.

Reviewer Duties

The reviewer is tasked with:

  1. Assess the scientific quality of the manuscript in line with the field of expertise.
  2. Provide objective, clear, and constructive input to the author.
  3. Assist editors in determining the eligibility of manuscripts for publication.
  4. Submit the results of the review in accordance with the set deadline.

Ethics Reviewer

In carrying out the review process, the reviewer is expected to:

  1. Maintain the confidentiality of all the contents of the reviewed manuscript.
  2. Conduct an objective assessment without discrimination.
  3. Avoid conflicts of interest with authors or related institutions.
  4. Do not use the data or information in the manuscript for personal gain.
  5. Provide professional, courteous, and constructive comments.
  6. Report to the editor if indications of plagiarism, fabrication, data falsification, or other publication ethics violations are found.

Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are asked to provide ratings on the following aspects:

  1. The suitability of the article for the journal's focus and scope.
  2. Novelty, benefits, and contribution of community service activities.
  3. Clarity of identification of problems and needs of partners.
  4. The accuracy of the method of implementing the activity.
  5. Quality of results, outputs, and service impacts.
  6. The sharpness of the discussion and its relationship with similar theories or activities.
  7. Clarity and accuracy of conclusions.
  8. The quality of references, including their relevance and up-to-dateness.
  9. Writing quality, systematics, language, tables, and images.

Reviewer Recommendations

Based on the results of the review, the reviewer was asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept: Articles are accepted without revision.
  2. Minor Revision: Articles are accepted with minor revisions.
  3. Major Revision: The article needs substantial revision and will be reviewed.
  4. Reject: Articles are rejected because they do not meet scientific standards or do not fit the scope of the journal.

Review Terms

  1. The review process is carried out objectively, fairly, and based on scientific substance.
  2. Reviewers are expected to complete the review process within 7–14 days of receiving the assignment.
  3. All comments and recommendations of the reviewer are considered by the editor in making the final decision on the manuscript.

We want to thank the reviewers for their contribution in maintaining the quality of scientific publications and supporting the development of science through the publication of community service results.