Review Guidelines

Introduction to Reviewing Manuscripts for Majalah Obat Tradisional (Traditional Medicine Journal)

"The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript. Majalah Obat Tradisional (Traditional Medicine Journal) operates a double-blind peer review system." AJ

Reviewers play a crucial role in assisting the Editor by ensuring that the manuscript aligns with the journal's focus and scope. They also provide authors with feedback to enhance the paper.


Reviewer's Responsibilities Before Accepting a Review

Reviewers should confirm that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and that they can dedicate sufficient time to conduct a thorough review. 

Conflict of Interest

“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests” WAME.

”Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. ICMJE

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and abstain from reviewing if a conflict exists. Manuscripts involving conflicts due to personal relationships with authors, organizations, or institutions must be reported to the Editor.

Objective Review Process

Reviews must be conducted objectively, irrespective of the author's demographics or values. Personal criticism of the author is discouraged. Reviewers should express their viewpoints with clear and well-supported arguments.



"Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review processes are confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process." AJ

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential and should not be disclosed or discussed without authorization from the Editor. Privileged information and ideas obtained during the review process must be kept confidential.

Citation and Plagiarism Check

‘The practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own’ Oxford Dictionaries

It is unethical for reviewers to “use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others” COPE

Reviewers should identify any relevant published work that authors may have overlooked. If a statement or argument has been previously reported, the reviewer should provide the relevant citation. References should follow the Harvard style. Any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and previously published work should be brought to the Editor's attention.


Review reports

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Contribution to the field
  • Technical quality
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Depth of research
  • Adherence to author instructions, editorial policies, and publication ethics
  • Compliance with the appropriate journal's reporting guidelines

Reviews should be accurate, objective, constructive, and unambiguous. Comments should be supported by evidence and constructive arguments. Hostile, derogatory, or accusatory comments should be avoided (PIE).

Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript but are encouraged to offer necessary corrections and suggestions for improvement.



Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that they can review within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer feels unqualified, they should inform the Editor promptly and excuse themselves from the review process.

Reviews should be conducted and returned in a timely manner.



Reviewers are expected to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accepted
  • Accepted with minor revisions
  • Accepted with major revisions
  • Rejected

Recommendations should be supported by constructive arguments and evidence based on the manuscript's content.


Your meticulous and ethical review process is fundamental to maintaining the journal's quality and integrity. Thank you for your commitment to the peer review process.