Why peer review?

• To learn more about the editing process.
• To stay abreast of new research in your field.
• To demonstrate your expertise in a field, and to fulfill your professional responsibility to contribute that expertise to others as they develop their research

Formal benefits for reviewers
Arka Institute would like to thank all peer reviewers who support our journals. We are pleased to offer a 50% discount for all journals published in Arka Institute Journals to all peer reviewers. Please contact the journal editorial team (jurnal@arkainstitute.co.id)  if you are publishing a manuscript in one of Arka Institute Journals.

How to become a reviewer?
Please visit our website and join as a reviewer. To do so, fill out the form available through our website (Click Here to Open Form).

Then we will evaluate your request for reviewer.

If we accept your request, we will send you a confirmation email with login details for the Reviewer Management System, Guidelines, and Decision Letter. In that email, you will get the Reviewer OJS ID. Then you can login to our OJS for the review process.

The peer review process
Peer review plays a crucial role in academic research, ensuring that articles published in scholarly journals meet the highest standards of quality, accuracy, and relevance. Journals depend on the commitment and expertise of reviewers to assess whether submissions are appropriate for publication.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the peer review process, and hopefully helps you understand your role in maintaining academic integrity.

Before you review
Before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript for a journal, please take a moment to consider the following responsibilities:

• Ethical Guidelines: Kindly ensure that you are familiar with and able to follow the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. You may review them [here].
• Expertise: Please assess whether the manuscript aligns with your area of expertise. If the topic is outside your field, you could inform the editor at your earliest convenience and suggest alternative reviewers if possible.
• Submission Process: Verify that you understand how to submit your review. You may provide comments directly on the manuscript, use the free text box in OJS, or, in certain cases, email your report to the editor.
• Conflicts of Interest: If there are any potential conflicts of interest, disclose any conflicts of interest to the editor before reviewing. A conflict of interest does not necessarily disqualify you, but transparency is highly valued. Should you have any concerns, please feel free to contact the editorial office at jurnal@arkainstitute.co.id.
• Time Commitment: The review process should ideally be completed within two to four weeks. If you require additional time, notify the editor as soon as possible.

We truly appreciate your time and expertise in contributing to the peer review process.

Review Process
Your report serves two important purposes:

• Assisting the editors in making informed decisions
• Offering constructive feedback to help authors enhance their work.

A helpful approach is to start with a brief summary of the manuscript, including its key findings as you understand them, along with an overview of your overall assessment.

Providing critical feedback while maintaining a respectful tone can sometimes be challenging. A good practice is to focus your critiques on the content of the work itself rather than making comments that could be perceived as personal criticism of the authors.

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

• Your comments should be constructive and appropriate for the authors. Provide helpful suggestions, request clarification on unclear points, and ask for further explanation where needed. Keep in mind that authors appreciate both positive feedback and constructive criticism.
• For papers presenting original research, consider whether the methods used are appropriate and whether the study meets the standards expected in your field.
• Offer recommendations on improving the clarity, conciseness, and overall quality of the presentation. Additionally, assess whether the paper's subject matter is engaging enough to justify its length. If you suggest shortening the manuscript, specify which sections could be condensed.
• While reviewers are not responsible for correcting spelling or grammar, it is helpful to highlight any areas where the technical meaning is unclear.
• It is acceptable to disagree with the authors, but allow them the opportunity to justify their arguments, as long as they provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
• Reviewers are not expected to identify all issues related to research integrity, but your expertise may help detect potential concerns that editors or editorial staff might overlook. If you suspect any misconduct, please inform the editor or publisher promptly.

Article Content

• If similar research has been conducted by other authors, does this study still provide valuable contributions that justify publication?
• Is the article original, thorough, and engaging enough to merit publication?
• Does the research add meaningful insights to the scientific community?

Does the article adhere to the journal’s quality standards?

Scope

• Does the article align with the journal’s aims and scope?

Title

• Does the title accurately represent the content of the article?

Abstract

• Does the abstract effectively summarize the article’s content?
• Does it provide a concise overview of the study’s urgency, objectives, methodology, results, conclusions, implications, and/or recommendations?

Introduction

• Does the introduction clearly present the issues discussed by the authors?
• Does it effectively outline the research problem, provide relevant background, highlight research gaps, demonstrate the study’s novelty, and explain its objectives?

Methods

• Does the author clearly describe the data collection process?
• Are the theoretical foundations and references appropriate for this study?
• Is the research design suitable for addressing the research question?
• Does the article provide enough detail to allow replication of the study?
• Are the study procedures clearly identified?
• If new methods are introduced, does the author explain them thoroughly?
• Was the sampling process appropriate?
• Are the tools and materials used adequately described?

Does the article clearly outline the types of data collected and accurately describe the measurements?

Results

• This section should clearly present the study’s findings in a logical sequence.
• Does the presentation of the results align with the research methods used?
• Were appropriate analyses performed, and were the statistical tools used correctly?
• If you believe more suitable statistical tools could be used, please suggest them.
• Are the figures, diagrams, and tables relevant, of high quality, and properly labeled?

Discussion

• Are the claims in this section well-supported by the results?
• Does the author compare the study’s findings to previous research?
• Do the results align with or contradict existing theories?
• If the findings challenge current understanding, is the supporting evidence strong enough? If not, what additional experiments would be needed? If major revisions are necessary, what specific changes should be made?

Conclusion

• Does the conclusion provide insights into how future scientific research can be improved?
• Does the conclusion answer the research objectives stated by the author?

Reference

• Are the references well-balanced and appropriately acknowledge relevant published work? Suggestions for additional relevant references are encouraged.
• Are the references provided consistent with the citations in the body of the manuscript?

Final Review

• All results of the review submitted by reviewers are confidential
• If you want to discuss the article with a colleague, kindly inform the editor
• Do not contact the author directly.