Additional Menu
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines - Jurnal Pengabdian Berbagi Manfaat
Peer review is an essential component of the scholarly publishing process that guarantees the quality, rigor, and validity of community engagement research[cite: 10]. Jurnal Pengabdian Berbagi Manfaat requires all invited reviewers to conduct evaluations in strict compliance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers[cite: 10]. Reviewers play a vital role in upholding academic integrity, supporting authors through constructive feedback, and assisting the Editorial Board in making fair publication decisions[cite: 10].
Conflict of Interest and Expertise:
Reviewers should only accept invitations to review manuscripts for which they possess adequate subject expertise and can complete within the requested timeframe[cite: 10]. In accordance with the ethical rules set forth in the COPE Core Principles, reviewers must immediately decline an invitation and notify the editor if a financial, personal, professional, or competitive conflict of interest exists that could compromise their objectivity[cite: 10].
Reviewers should only accept invitations to review manuscripts for which they possess adequate subject expertise and can complete within the requested timeframe[cite: 10]. In accordance with the ethical rules set forth in the COPE Core Principles, reviewers must immediately decline an invitation and notify the editor if a financial, personal, professional, or competitive conflict of interest exists that could compromise their objectivity[cite: 10].
Confidentiality and Intellectual Property:
All submitted manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents[cite: 10]. Following the standards in the COPE Core Practices, reviewers must not share, discuss, or quote unpublished manuscript content with third parties without prior authorization from the Editor-in-Chief[cite: 10]. Additionally, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts or peer-review data into public generative artificial intelligence tools, in line with the COPE Position Statement on AI Tools[cite: 10].
All submitted manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents[cite: 10]. Following the standards in the COPE Core Practices, reviewers must not share, discuss, or quote unpublished manuscript content with third parties without prior authorization from the Editor-in-Chief[cite: 10]. Additionally, reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts or peer-review data into public generative artificial intelligence tools, in line with the COPE Position Statement on AI Tools[cite: 10].
Objectivity, Constructive Feedback, and Misconduct Reporting:
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, focusing on methodological soundness, community impact, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards[cite: 10]. Peer reviews should be written constructively and professionally without hostile, derogatory, or personal comments[cite: 10]. If a reviewer suspects instances of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or undisclosed ethical violations, they should inform the editor confidentially, referencing the procedures outlined in the COPE Flowcharts on Suspected Misconduct[cite: 10].
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, focusing on methodological soundness, community impact, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards[cite: 10]. Peer reviews should be written constructively and professionally without hostile, derogatory, or personal comments[cite: 10]. If a reviewer suspects instances of plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or undisclosed ethical violations, they should inform the editor confidentially, referencing the procedures outlined in the COPE Flowcharts on Suspected Misconduct[cite: 10].
