Review Guidline
Thank you for reviewing for JACOBS. This guideline explains what the editors expect from a review and how to write a report that helps both the editors and the authors.
Before Accepting an Invitation
- Check that the manuscript falls within your expertise. Partial expertise is acceptable if you tell the editor which parts you can evaluate.
- Make sure you can complete the review within 21 days. If not, decline promptly or ask for an extension.
- Check for any conflict of interest (see Conflict of Interest). If you recognize the authors and feel you cannot remain objective, decline.
- Respond to the invitation within five days, using the links in the invitation email or your OJS dashboard.
Ethical Responsibilities
- Keep the manuscript confidential. Do not share it, discuss it with others, or upload any part of it to AI tools.
- Do not contact the authors directly.
- Do not use unpublished information from the manuscript for your own advantage.
- Request citations to your own work only when they are genuinely necessary for the manuscript.
- Report to the editor any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or ethical violations involving participants.
Evaluation Criteria
| Criterion | Questions to consider |
|---|---|
| 1. Relevance and contribution | Does the manuscript fit the journal's scope? Does it make a clear and meaningful contribution to theory, method, or practice? What is new about it? |
| 2. Title and abstract | Do the title and abstract accurately and completely reflect the study, including its main results? |
| 3. Introduction and theory | Is the problem clearly stated? Is the literature current and critically reviewed? Is the gap convincing? Are hypotheses derived from theory? |
| 4. Method | Is the design suitable for the research question? Is the sample size justified? Are the instruments valid and reliable for this population? Is the procedure, including any intervention, described well enough to be replicated? Are ethical approval and consent reported? |
| 5. Analysis | Are the analyses appropriate and correctly carried out? Were assumptions tested? Are effect sizes and confidence intervals reported? For qualitative work, is the analysis systematic and trustworthy? |
| 6. Results | Are the results clearly presented, consistent across text, tables, and figures, and free of interpretation that belongs in the Discussion? |
| 7. Discussion and conclusion | Are the findings interpreted in light of theory and previous research? Are implications realistic? Are limitations acknowledged? Do the conclusions follow from the data? |
| 8. References | Are the references relevant, current, and mainly primary sources? Are key works missing? Is APA 7th edition followed? |
| 9. Presentation | Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written? Are tables and figures necessary and readable? |
| 10. Research ethics | Are there any concerns about plagiarism, data integrity, participant welfare, or undisclosed conflicts of interest? |
Structure of the Review Report
- Summary. Two or three sentences describing the aim, method, and main findings, as you understood them.
- Overall assessment. The main strengths and the key weaknesses that determine your recommendation.
- Major comments. Numbered points on problems that must be addressed for the conclusions to be valid, such as design, analysis, or interpretation.
- Minor comments. Numbered points on clarity, presentation, missing details, or references, with page and line numbers where possible.
- Confidential comments to the editor. Optional remarks not shared with the authors, for example about suspected ethical issues.
- Recommendation. Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
Tone
Be specific, constructive, and respectful. Comment on the work, not on the authors. Explain why something is a problem and, where possible, how it could be fixed. Avoid unsupported general statements such as "the methodology is weak". Distinguish clearly between changes that are required and suggestions that are optional.
Second Round of Review
When a revised manuscript is returned to you, check whether your comments have been adequately addressed, using the authors' response letter. Avoid raising new issues that were not part of the first review unless they arise from the changes made or are serious.
Recognition
Reviewers receive a certificate of review for each completed review and are listed on the journal's Reviewer page. Questions about the review process can be sent to journal.nalatama@gmail.com.
