Guidelines for Reviewers

The main objective of the review process is to provide information to the Editor in order to achieve a decision that prioritizes justice and is based on evidence in accordance with the guidelines that have been made by the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal. The results of the review process are expected to help and facilitate authors in improving their writing, so that it is suitable for publication in the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal. The results of the evaluation of articles from reviewers should be accompanied by notes of criticism and input, so that the review process can produce quality articles. Likewise, when reviewers make a decision to reject an article, it should be accompanied by an explanation of the main weaknesses of the article, so that this explanation can help authors improve their articles and prepare their articles for submission to other journals. In the review process, reviewers should adhere to the principles of the COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers. The most important thing in the process of conducting a review is that reviewers must provide a critical and objective assessment based on the criteria set by the Dynamics of Rural Society.

The evaluation and assessment results from the reviewers will determine the quality of the articles to be published in the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal . Besides that, the evaluation results from the reviewers will be taken into consideration by the journal manager in making a decision on whether a manuscript is accepted for publication in the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal or rejected. Therefore, it is hoped that the manuscript evaluation process will be carried out strictly, selectively, objectively, and constructively, and equipped with comments that are very clear, straightforward, and easily understood by the author, so that the writer can know clearly what needs to be corrected from the manuscript that is being tested. has been evaluated.

A. Things that must be considered before evaluating the manuscript

Before reviewing the manuscript, please note the following:

    1. Reviewers are expected to know and understand the style guide for journal publications and the journal writing format contained in the template.
    2. Please first read the title and abstract of the manuscript sent to you, so that you can determine whether this manuscript is in accordance with your area of expertise.
    3. Is the Manuscript sent for review in accordance with your field of knowledge? If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that is not in accordance with your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible and it is expected to recommend alternative reviewers in the journal reviewers team (if any).
    4. Do you have time to review this paper? The review process must be completed within a maximum of 3 weeks. If you agree or disagree, please notify the editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer. When in the process of reviewing your manuscript you experience serious problems, it is hoped that you will immediately contact the editor to discuss this matter.
    5. Is there a potential conflict of interest? If there is a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, cooperation, or other relationships with the institutions or companies involved in the publication, reviewers are not allowed to evaluate the manuscript? Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify you as Reviewers disclose all conflicts of interest to the editor before conducting a review. If you have any questions about a potential conflict of interest, don't hesitate to contact the editorial office.
    6. Please read the entire manuscript, so that reviewers can build an overall impression, and can identify findings from the study.
    7. The review must be carried out objectively.
    8. Reviewers are not allowed to criticize the author's personality, and are not allowed to provide comments that contain slander against the author's personality.
    9. Assess the writing style of the article. The writing style of the article must be short, concise, and correct. Ask the following questions in an effort to evaluate the writing style of the article being reviewed: Is the language clear and unambiguous? Is excessive jargon interfering with his ability to make arguments? Is any of the writing too long-winded? Can any idea be stated in a simpler way?
    10. Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
    11. The reviewer must respect the confidentiality of the material and data in the article being reviewed, and is not allowed to use the data in the manuscript being reviewed for personal gain.

B. Write a review of the evaluation results

  1. Give an assessment in the review form provided on the journal website. The evaluation aspect consists of aspects of manuscript originality, contribution to scientific studies, quality of analysis, and depth of research. The following components of the assessment that you can give: (1 = Very Good); (2 = Good); (3 = Enough); (4 = Less).
  2. Write down your correction notes and suggestions regarding the manuscript by: block the words/sentences to be commented on (notes), then click the Review menu in Microsoft Word, then select " New Comment ", then type the notes or comments you want to give. When finished, please save the file to be sent back to the editor via the journal website.
  3. After the corrections in Microsoft Word have been completed and saved, please copy these comments, then paste them in the comments column of the Review form provided on the journal's website.
  4. Additional Comments (Please provide suggestions to the author). Please provide additional comments and suggestions to the author (if any), regarding the deficiencies in the manuscript. If the reviewer feels there is still something that needs to be commented on and given suggestions regarding the manuscript. Additional comments and suggestions from reviewers are needed for the quality of articles to be published in this journal. Additional comment fields have been provided in the review form.
  5. Plagiarism , if you suspect that the article is mostly plagiarism from other authors, please inform the editor in detail so that the editor can identify potential plagiarism in the manuscript; Scams : It is very difficult to detect fraud categories, but if you suspect the results in the article are incorrect, please inform the editors.

C. Manuscript content to be evaluated

 The following are items of manuscript content that must be evaluated by reviewers:

  1. Comments as a whole : Is this article original, shows novelty or a new contribution, and has important significance for the development of the field of knowledge? Does the article have an appropriate writing structure (with the journal's Author Guidelines ), does the article have good research depth and linguistic aspects?
  2. Abstract : Does the abstract contain a complete and structured summary starting from a brief background, objectives, methods, research results, and conclusions? Is the number of words in accordance with the requirements of the journal? Is the abstract written in English and Indonesian?
  3. Introduction : Is the introduction written in an effective, clear and well-organized manner? Does the introduction provide general background to the problem? Does the introduction contain the main issues to be examined? Does the introduction contain a summary of the state of the art overview of previous studies? Does the introduction contain the author's statement regarding the differences from previous studies and the research the author intends to do? Does the introduction contain clear and specific research objectives and reasons why it is important to do this research? Is this introduction enriched by the literature of the last 5 and 10 years? Does this introduction contain concise, clear and specific theoretical studies?
  4. Research Methods ( Methods ) : Does this research method contain a clear and concise description of methods and approaches, location and time, data sources, data collection techniques, and data analysis? Does the author contain the correct references regarding the research method used? Give your corrections and suggestions
  5. Results and Discussion ( Results and Discussion ) : Do the results contain research findings and are discussed clearly according to the context of the findings? Do the field findings describe differences and uniqueness compared to previous studies? Is there a comparison between the results of this study and previous studies, especially those presented in the overview in the introduction section? Give suggestions and corrections for improvements according to the data and analysis presented by the author. Especially regarding research findings and the suitability between problems, objectives, and research results. Then corrections regarding tables, figures and schematics that are presented in a clear, legible, correct and good resolution? Write comments and suggestions regarding manuscript improvement in a short, clear and precise manner. Is supporting data needed ?
  6. Tables and Figures

a. Does it match the explanation referred to by displaying data that is easily interpreted and understood by readers?

b. Does it match the writing format?

  1. Conclusion: Are the conclusions written by the author valid, important, and answer the research objectives? Are the conclusions claimed by the author supported by sufficient research data and analysis? Are there any sentences or conclusions that are redundant ? It should be noted that the Conclusion is very different from the Abstract.
  2. Bibliography (References): Are all citations in the text of the article listed in the bibliography section, and vice versa, are those written in the bibliography referred to in the text of the article? If the author uses footnotes, are the footnotes correct and appropriate? Has the bibliography been written correctly and consistently according to the format set by the journal? Is the number of references used in accordance with the requirements set by the journal? The number of references used is at least 10 references with details of 70% of the number of references used are scientific articles published in the last 10 years and the last 5 years.

D. Confidential Comments to Editors

Confidential comments for the Editor include: comments on novelty aspects and significance, as well as recommendations whether the manuscript is suitable for publication or not.

E. Decision

In this section, the reviewer must make a decision regarding the status of the manuscript that has been evaluated. There are four decisions that the reviewer can make including:

  1. Minor Revision;
  2. Moderate Revision;
  3. Major Revision; and or
  4. Not accepted (Rejected).