General guidelines

As a peer-reviewed journal, this statement clarifies ethical conduct to all parties involved in manuscript publication Jurnal Ilmu Kehutanan, including the author(s), editors (editor-in chief and associate editor), and the peer-reviewers. This statement is relied on Practice Guidelines for publication as in Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE’s Best).

In general, all parties should:

  • promote fairness and equality and oppose discrimination;
  • promote the transparency of and respect for the academic record;
  • respect the confidentiality of others;
  • be transparent about real or apparent competing interests.

Reviewers must:

  • maintain the confidentiality of the review process;
  • immediately alert their journal editor of any real or potential competing interest that could affect the impartiality of their reviewing and decline to review where appropriate;
  • conduct themselves fairly and impartially.

As a reviewer, the review request will be notified by email. From the link provided, click the “My Assigned list” and find the title and Review link. Notice the lack of any author information in this double-blind peer review process.

The Review link will take to the first review step in the submission record, which consists of the following sections:

  1. Request for Review: an invitation to act as a reviewer.
  2. Article Title: provides the title of the article.
  3. Abstract: provides the abstract text.

The View All Submission Details link will open a window with additional information, including all of the non-author metadata, the Review Schedule, including all of the relevant due dates.

If the review is accepted, please read through the following Reviewer Guidelines. Remember to strip any personal identification before uploading a marked up copy of the review file. If none of the choices of recommendations make sense, please leave a comment for the editor.

Having problem with reviewing under the platform of open journal system (OJS) version 3.1? Please visit this link for its user guide. Tutorial for review process adopted from is provided here.

Reviewer Guidelines

Review Steps

  1. Notify the submission's editor as to whether you will undertake the review.
  2. If you are going to do the review, consult the Reviewer Guidelines below.
  3. Click on file names to download and review (on screen or by printing) the files associated with this submission. Submission will be made available, if and when the reviewer agrees to undertake the review
  4. Click on the icon to fill in the review form.
  5. In addition, you can upload files for the editor and/or author to consult

Before accept or decline, consider the following questions:

  • Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
  • Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  • Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

Review checklists:

  1. Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor that you have read and understood the research.
  2. Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact, and adds to the knowledge base.
  3. Point out any journal-specific points – does it adhere to the journal’s standards?
  4. If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible.
  5. Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, Title, Abstract, Introduction, Method, statistical errors, Results, Conclusion/Discussion, language, and References.


When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article:

  • Reject (it has too many weakness to ever be accepted): explain the reason in report
  • Accept without revision (it is ready to go to Copyediting as is)
  • Revise (it requires either major or minor): explain the revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article