REVIEWERS GUIDELINES

Guidelines for Reviewers

The main objective of the review process is to provide the reviewer with information that helps achieve a decision prioritizing fairness, based on evidence, and in accordance with the guidelines established by the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal. The results of the review process are expected to assist and facilitate authors in improving their manuscripts, making them suitable for publication in the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal. Feedback from reviewers should include constructive criticism and suggestions, ensuring that the review process results in high-quality articles. Similarly, when reviewers decide to reject an article, they should provide an explanation of the article's main weaknesses, helping authors improve their work and prepare it for submission to other journals. Throughout the review process, reviewers must adhere to the principles outlined in the COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers. The most crucial aspect of conducting a review is that reviewers provide a critical and objective assessment based on the criteria established by the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal.

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 2 to 3 weeks, starting from the moment the article is sent to you. 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

Points to be Evaluated by Reviewers Regarding Manuscript Content

Overall Comments
Is the article original, showing novelty or new contributions, and does it have significant importance for the development of the field of knowledge? Does the article have a structure that aligns with the journal's Author Guidelines? Does the article reflect a good depth of research and use appropriate language? Provide clear and specific comments and suggestions for manuscript improvements. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and relevant suggestions. Is supporting data required?

Title of the Article
Does the title of the article clearly reflect the main topic of the research and not exceed 25 words? Is the title written specifically, focused, and aligned with the scope and focus of the journal? Does the title reflect the novelty or new contribution of the research to the field of knowledge covered by the journal? Is the title free from ambiguity and easily understood by readers? Provide clear and specific comments and suggestions for manuscript improvements. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

Abstract
Does the abstract contain a complete and structured summary, starting with a brief background, objectives, methods, research results, and concluding with the findings? Does the abstract adhere to the journal's word limit requirement, which is a maximum of 250 words? Is the abstract well-written in both English and Indonesian? Provide clear and specific comments and suggestions for manuscript improvements. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

Introduction
Is the introduction written in an effective, clear, and well-organized manner? Does the introduction provide adequate background information on the issue being discussed? Does the introduction cover the main issues that will be addressed in this study? Does the introduction include relevant literature, address key issues related to the topic, and provide a clear overview of the research developments in the field? Does the introduction include a statement about the limitations of previous research? Does the author highlight the differences or unique contributions of this study (state of the art)? Are the references used in the introduction recent, published within the last 5 to 7 years? Does the introduction contain a clear and specific research objective and explain why this study is important? Provide clear and specific comments and suggestions for manuscript improvements. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

Research Methodology
Does the methodology section provide a clear and concise description of the methods and approaches used, including the research location and timeframe, data sources, data collection techniques, and data analysis methods? Does the author provide appropriate references regarding the research methods used? Provide corrections and suggestions as needed. Write your comments and suggestions clearly and precisely. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

Results and Discussion
Are the research results presented clearly and discussed in the context of the findings? Do the field findings demonstrate differences and uniqueness compared to previous studies? Are the results and discussion aligned with the research objectives? Is there a clear comparison between the current research results and previous studies, especially those mentioned in the introduction? Provide suggestions and corrections based on the data and analysis presented by the author, particularly regarding the research findings and the consistency between the problem, objectives, and results. Also, provide corrections regarding the clarity, readability, accuracy, and resolution of tables, figures, and diagrams. Write your comments and suggestions clearly and precisely. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

Tables and Figures
Do the tables and figures correspond to the explanations provided and present data that is easily understood by readers? Is the format of the tables and figures in accordance with the journal's guidelines? Write your comments and suggestions clearly and precisely. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

Conclusion
Is the conclusion written by the author valid, significant, and does it address the research objectives? Is the conclusion supported by sufficient data and research analysis? Are there any redundant statements or conclusions? It should be noted that the conclusion is distinctly different from the abstract. Write your comments and suggestions clearly and precisely. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

References (Bibliography)
Are all citations in the article text listed in the reference section, and vice versa, are all the references in the reference section cited in the article text? Is the reference list correctly and consistently formatted according to the journal's guidelines? Does the reference list use tools like Mendeley or similar? Has the reference list been properly written according to the APA 7th edition style? Is the number of references used in accordance with the journal's requirements? The minimum number of references should be 15, with 85% of the references coming from scholarly articles published in the last 5 to 10 years. Write your comments and suggestions clearly and precisely for manuscript improvements. Use the Review menu in Microsoft Word to highlight areas that need correction and suggestions. Is supporting data required?

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).