The Southeast Asian Journal of Science and Technology uses a free-form approach for reviewers, who may provide general comments based on the criteria provided below. Reviewers may download the manuscript and add comments directly to the MS Word document, or they may provide a general comment on the paper being reviewed.
This guide is designed to assist you in conducting a thorough and fair review.
1. Understanding Your Role
As a reviewer, you are tasked with providing a constructive and critical analysis of the manuscript’s scientific content, clarity, relevance, and originality. Your feedback should help the authors improve their work and assist the editors in making a decision on the manuscript’s suitability for publication in SAJST.
2. Before You Accept the Review Assignment
- Conflicts of Interest: Ensure that you have no conflicts of interest with the authors, their institution, or the manuscript’s research funding sources.
- Expertise: Confirm that you have the subject matter expertise required to provide a detailed and informed review.
- Availability: Verify that you can complete the review within the specified timeframe (typically 2-4 weeks).
3. Conducting the Review
- Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a confidential document. Do not discuss its content with others or use the information for your own or another’s advantage.
- Objectivity: Review the manuscript objectively and professionally. Criticize the work, not the authors. Be specific in your criticisms, and provide evidence with references where appropriate.
- Structure of Your Review:
- Summary: Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript to demonstrate your understanding of the research.
- Major Issues: Address any major concerns regarding the manuscript’s originality, methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of results. Comment on the significance and contribution to the field.
- Minor Issues: Note any minor issues, such as typographical errors, unclear passages, or formatting issues.
- Recommendation: Conclude with your recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject), substantiated by your comments.
4. Evaluation Criteria
- Originality and Contribution: Does the manuscript provide new insights or contribute significantly to the field?
- Methodology: Is the research design appropriate, and are the methods adequately described?
- Results: Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data?
- Interpretation: Are the conclusions supported by the results, and do they address the research questions?
- Relevance: Is the manuscript relevant to the journal’s readership and scope?
- Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and logically organized?
5. Providing Constructive Feedback
- Be Specific: Refer to specific sections or lines of the manuscript when making your points.
- Be Constructive: Offer suggestions for improvement. If you recommend rejection, explain your reasoning clearly.
- Be Courteous: Phrase your comments respectfully and avoid dismissive language.
6. After Submitting Your Review
- Follow-Up: The editors may contact you for further clarification or follow-up questions during the decision-making process.
- Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality of the review process even after its conclusion.
7. Continuous Improvement
SAJST values your contribution and seeks to improve the review process continually. We welcome your feedback on the review process and any suggestions you may have for the journal.