Reviewer Information

All information about the reviewer in RISS Journal

Reviewers Guidelines

Peer review is considered as one of the scientific and objective way to review scholarly publications and thus, RISS Journal conducts peer reviews. In this process, the name of the author as well as the reviewer remains anonymous.

The purpose of RISS Journal in conducting peer review includes the following:

  • To properly verify the information and to filter irrelevant findings before being published
  • To improve the overall quality of the publication based on the important points and corrections from the expert reviewers.
Things to Consider as a Reviewer
  • Expertise – As a reviewer, you have to make sure that the article you are being requested to review match to your expertise. Do not accept an invitation if you are not competent enough to do the review.
  • Time – Make sure that you have enough time to do the review. In most cases, it will take you 5 hours to finish the review. If you think that you cannot do it because of the time, notify the editor immediately.
During the Review Process
  • You must keep in mind that confidentiality is one of the important things you must respect. Do not share any information or findings to other people. If you want to elicit opinions from others, make sure to inform the editor beforehand and do not try to contact the author.
  • Keep in mind that you need to make a serious and honest review because your recommendations will contribute to the decision of the editor.
  • Review the article based on the criteria required.
  • If plagiarized materials and manipulated data are suspected, inform the editor immediately
Review Criteria
Reviewers must consider the following criteria in conducting a review by asking some of the indicated questions:
  • Originality and Appropriateness – Does the article conform to the standard of the journal?
  • Structure and Lay-out – Does the article follow the standard format and the tables and figures are presented accurately?
  • Title – Does the title describe the entire article?
  • Summary or Abstract – Does it show the content of the entire article?
  • Methodology – Does the data collection process properly explained? Is the design appropriate for the article? Are there enough samples to represent the entire population?
  • Results and Analysis – Does the result properly analyzed? Are the statistics correctly done? Is there enough interpretation provided?
  • Conclusion and Discussion – Is there enough evidence to support the conclusion? Do the recent findings support the previous theories? Are the results reasonable?
  • Ethical Issues – Does the article free from plagiarism and fraud? Is there any human and animal rights violated?
Communicating the Review
If you found that the article needs improvement, immediately communicate the report to the editor. The report must contain the needed information. Lastly, you must make proper recommendations such rejected, accepted and for minor or major revision.