Guidelines for Reviewers
Manuscripts submitted for publication in Jurnal Psikologi are subjected to double-blind peer-review. Double-blind reviewing protects the identity of the reviewers and authors. The anonymity of reviewers and authors ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers are advised to consider the following important aspects of a manuscript when conducting the review.
1. Reporting of Original Results:
The results reported in the manuscript must be original and authentic work of the authors. They should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier. Studies which report some reproduced results, for example, a new clinical trial, may also be considered for publication.
2. Experiments and Analyses:
Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate in reaching accurate conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments, as well as reagents, should be documented in detail.
3. Interpretation of Results:
Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions in an appropriate and comprehensive manner, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results may result in rejection of the manuscript.
4. Language of Composition:
The manuscript should be written in Indonesia and English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript.
5. Experiments involving Humans and Animals:
The research must meet the highest applicable international standards of the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
6. Manuscript Evaluation:
Evaluation of manuscripts is carried out by the journal Editors and the invited external peer reviewers according to the following procedures. EDITORIAL PROCESS The editorial process and peer-review workflow are taken care of by a team of Editorial Member who have expertise in their specific fields. The Board Members are sought through invitations to organize and conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript keeping the scope of the manuscript and the expertise of Editors in view. Manuscripts are forwarded for evaluation to Editors as well as external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript:
(a) Falls within the scope of the journal, and (b) Meets the editorial criteria of Jurnal Psikologi in terms of originality and quality. Editors may recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript by conducting the peer-review themselves based on their own knowledge and experience, or they may take assistance and advice from other experts in the field. After a review of the manuscript by at least two independent experts, in addition to the views of the Editor, the decision is relayed to the authors.
The six types of decisions are categorized below:
- Accepted for publication
- Minor revisions are needed without a review
- Mayor revisions and resubmit
- Recommended to be submitted to other reviewers
- Beyond the scope
SELECTION OF REVIEWERS The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board Members of a journal have the right to select reviewers for a particular manuscript considering the knowledge and experience of the reviewers. Before sending the manuscripts to a reviewer, Jurnal Psikologi seeks consent from potential reviewers about their availability and willingness for review. The correspondence between the editorial office of the journal and reviewers is kept confidential.
PURPOSE OF A REVIEW A review report provides the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Member with an expert opinion on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. It also supplies authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers to make them acceptable for publication in the journal. Although confidential comments to the editors are not relayed to authors, any remarks that may help improve the quality of the manuscript are forwarded to the authors for their consideration. A good review report answers the following important areas: Is the work novel and of high standards? What are the main findings of the paper? Is relevant work of other authors in the field appropriately acknowledged and references given to the previous literature? Do the experimental data support the declarations? If not, what other evidence may prove fruitful? What kind of readers would benefit from the manuscript and why? In what further directions would it be feasible to take the current research?
IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports: Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved? Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations? Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?
CHANGES IN REVIEW REPORTS The Editorial staff relays the comments of the reviewers on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Members. The review reports are edited by the Editor-in-Chief/ Editorial Board Members if the comments contain confidential information or these are written in a language not suitable for scholarly communication. Reviewers should include such comments in the confidential section of the review form, which is intended to be read by the editors only.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST Jurnal Psikologi respects requests not to have the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who may have competing interests with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for Editors to be aware of all competing interests; we, therefore, expect that reviewers would inform the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Members if they notice any potential competing interest during the course of review of a manuscript. Moreover, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editors or editorial office of the journal if they have any conflict of interest in carrying out a review of a manuscript submitted by an author/contributor.