Reviewer Guidelines

In the manuscript review process for the JETL journal, reviewers do not need to review the manuscript in all aspects, because several other aspects will be examined by the Editors Team. It is enough for a reviewer to review the content of the article from its scientific aspect. Reviewers are responsible for criticizing by reading and evaluating texts in their field of expertise, then providing constructive advice and honest feedback to the authors of the articles submitted. Peer reviewers discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to improve the strength and quality of the paper, and evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript so that it is suitable for publication in JETL. Before reviewing, please note the following:

  1. Does the article requested for review match your expertise? If you receive an article covering a topic that is not your area of ??expertise, please notify the JETL editor as soon as possible. We also hope you recommend alternative reviewers.
  2. Do you have time to review this paper? The JETL Team Editor allows time for the review process to be within a maximum of 4 weeks. If you agree and it takes longer, let the JETL editor know as soon as possible, or you can provide alternative reviewer suggestions.
  3. Is there a potential conflict of interest? While a conflict of interest will not disqualify you from being a reviewer, you also need to disclose all potential conflicts of interest to the JETL editor prior to reviewing. If you have any questions about a potential conflict of interest, don't hesitate to contact the JETL Team editorial.

 

Furthermore, some important things that a JETL reviewer should check and pay attention to are:

  1. Please review the relevance of the focus of the article to the scope of JETL.
  2. Please check whether scientifically the contents of this article
  3. Please check the novelty aspects and new contributions claimed by the author (novelty).
  4. Please check the relevance of all articles referenced by the article and their discussion in the article.
  5. Please check the suitability of the methodology used in solving the problem
  6. Please verify the conclusion supported by sufficient data and research results and answer the research objectives.
  7. Please check all statistical analyzes (if needed) are sufficient or not to solve the problem and confirm problem-solving.
  8. Please check the language aspect of the article
  9. Please check the gap analysis on previous studies, written clearly.
  10. Please check the quality/resolution of the figures and tables and their clarity and correctness.

It is recommended that reviewers provide comments that are constructive, clear, and easy for the author to understand, and are not judgmental.